Hi Le lun. 26 sept. 2022 à 23:42, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> a écrit :
> > If we limit the problem to avoiding build failures in cases that > upstream does not support, there would be the trivial solution of > having a package ship Provides like: > - architecture-is-64bit > - architecture-is-32bit > - architecture-is-little-endian > - architecture-is-big-endian > - architecture-has-64bit-timet > -... > > Build-Depends: architecture-is-64bit, architecture-is-little-endian,... > would be a package that only supports 64bit little endian architectures, > and that would never be attempted to build on 32bit or big endian > architectures. > > The buildd page would then show for i386: > mypackage build-depends on missing: > - architecture-is-64bit > > Not building a source package on one specific architecture could already > today be achieved with: > Build-Depends: package-is-broken-on-ppc64el [ppc64el],... > > This might not be the most elegant solution, but it should be sufficient > to solve the problem in this thread and it does not require any tool > changes. > I find it both simple and elegant -- and it's probably pretty efficient too. Perhaps there should be a conventional naming scheme for such virtual packages ; say deb-missing-feature, deb-unsupported-architecture or some such? J.Puydt >
