On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 01:20:11PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > We're not there yet, so please hold your horses. Although I tend to think we > should allow this too for the use cases you describe. So unless it's really > the intent of a (source) package or small (source) package set to be meant > to be used in a multi architecture environment I think we should demand that > dependencies are not be exclusively fulfilled by packages from another > architecture (:any is OK, :$arch is not). So indeed, each should require > manual review. While writing this that *could* mean that britney2 grows > support for cross-architecture dependencies while still blocking them if not > forced.
I second this. I think we are already issuing a little too many :native and :any annotations that occasionally fire back (when changing M-A:no to M-A:foreign or M-A:allowed to M-A:same). Allowing :$arch for a reviewed set enables a few useful corner cases and avoids use where it is not appropriate. Before we drop -$arch-cross packages, we should consult with Matthias though. I think he has more reasons for them than britney2. One of them is that we can perform basic cross compilation to non-release architectures using only release-architecture packages. If we were to drop them, I'm not sure how gcc-$VER-cross-ports could exist. Helmut
