Hi, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> wrote (Wed, 14 Jun 2023 21:19:00 +0200): > Also, on the topic of arch-specific builds, I not convinced it's worth a > lot of effort. The amount of arch specific pieces is rather limited, so > I wouldn't mind if we drop that altogether. Currently, we don't do a > great service to people that need to support multiple architectures, > because they need to *search* for the delta's, so I wouldn't be > surprised if it is even better if we drop it.
>From the technical side, I managed to get the arch-specific builds done in the meantime basically; so no problem anymore there - theoretically. On the other side, I also thought about the arch-specific differences, and given they are only rather small, my assumption was, that it's maybe not worth it to differentiate between archs, when it comes to filtering out content of r-n depending on the architecture. But even if we leave that point out, there are some arch-dependent links like http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/dists/bookworm/main/binary-amd64/... in chapter 4.3.1 https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#network So, we still need to build the release-notes differentiated by archs (based on the current content). However, that does not mean, we could not change our base rules, so that filtering out chapters based on architecture is no longer used. I would vote for this solution, yes. Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
