On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Optionally maybe doing something is a terrible idea if we want
Handling a knife is dangerous, but we should not forbid knife. > - reproducible builds > - no surprises on security updates We do have tools to ensure that there are no regressions on all those fronts. > - no surprises for people on one architecture who want to do the same on > another Actually my goal was to make it easier to manage the list of architectures affected by a single special-case... without having to hardcode that information in multiple files. > If a build-dependency is not available on a given architecture, then the > package cannot be built on that architecture. Period. If that's a Life is not black and white. My present case shows it quite nicely. Shall I drop an architecture just because I can't build the manual page on that architecture ? My answer is a clear no. I have multiple other options, like moving the manual pages to a -doc package which is arch: all. I did not want to do this because it would bloat the archive with a tiny little package for a possibly temporary solution. I preferred to temporarily exclude some files until the architecture recovers from its missing pandoc (since that seems likely to happen). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
