Le 12/03/2024 à 19:11, Rene Engelhard a écrit :
Are we supposed to report bugs against packages ending up with "t64"
and missing the "Provides: <package_without_64>" for affected
architectures like armhf ?
That Provides: is there for archs where the transition *doesn't* make a
difference.
In Debian: Anything except armel/armhf. (ignoring ports where the 32bit
archs are in the same boat as armel/armhf ttbomk)
So the packages not having a Provides: <package_without_64> on armel/
armhf are correct.
Or are they intentional and we should wait for the package to be
tested/ready/whatever ?
Intentional, yes.
Thank you very much for explaining this. It wasn't clear from the
various documents that I found.
So the only thing to do is to wait for the dependencies to be available
to build my package on armhf ?
Regards,
--
Raphaël Halimi
