On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:56:03PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2020-11-02, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Source: mes > > Version: 0.22-4 > > Severity: important > > Tags: ftbfs > > > > "amd64 armel armhf i386" are the architectures supported upstream > > (32bit arm needs some files that are in upsteam but missing in the > > 0.22 release tarball). > > There is work on adding more architectures in mes upstream (e.g. arm, > arm64, FreeBSD, Hurd, riscv64)... > > My understanding was in Debian to not pre-emptively restrict > architectures...
It is not pre-emptively when upstream errors out stating an architecture is not supported. > I have gotten bugs on other packages for adding architecture > restrictions before even though it FTBFS on those architecture > before. It also depends on why it does FTBFS. When software is amd64-only there is no point wasting porter time for looking at the FTBFS on other architectures. For FTBFS caused by bugs you are right that architecture restrictions should not be done automatically only because a package does FTBFS. > Having architecture restrictions by default requires porters to get a > sourceful upload to enable building that package (or maintaining a > fork). >... How do you enable an architecture without a sourceful upload when upstream errors out? It is relatively rare that software needs porting to every single architecture, the normal case is software written in a higher language like C expected to run everywhere without porting. > live well, > vagrant cu Adrian
