On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:46:29AM -0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > I fear many packages will not be able to support these restrictions and still > need to be M-A:same.
:(
> This is because currently, Architecture:all
> implicitly means that the package is of the native architecture. Thus, if you
> would put those files into an Architecture:all package, they would loose the
> ability to transport the original architecture to their dependencies.
Yes, I remember reading and "meh"ing at this.
>In fact,
> for the sake of making source packages cross buildable, many Architecture:all
> packages are right now being converted into Architecture:any M-A:same
> packages.
As you know I'm kinda not in-sync with the cross/bootstrap/… projects,
but did you ever thought about some other solutions not inolving lying?
> Though I fear that there might exist
> cases where S_D_E is used legitimately. After all, if there were no legitimate
> uses of S_D_E, then why was it introduced instead of just patching all source
> packages to be completely independent of an input timestamp?
Personally, I see SDE as non-legitimate is just about all cases.
Timestamps in build processes should just die. Probably the only case I
support of it is to normalize mtimes of files inside archives, cause you
can't just zero them or the world breaks.
In fact, very few days ago I sent a patch to an upstream of mine to
remove __DATE__/__TIME__ usage, regardless of g++ respecting SDE now.
I.e. my solution to manpages and files embedding times is to get rid of
those times.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
