On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 02:36:03AM +0000, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Hi, > > as explained in the last message from me to these reports, this wont > happen, and since there is no value of having this three (doublicated > reports) open and rotting with wontfix forever, I'm closing them now. > > Regards, > Daniel
hey Daniel, It looks like the message you refer to is this one: On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:54:11 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Hi, > > this wont happen I think. > > First, it's not possible to build syslinux binaries (the bootloader > modules) on anything different than amd64 and i386. This means, that > there can't be an arch any sub packages only containing those binaries. > > Second, an arch all sub package only shipping the bootloader modules > /could/ be done, but it could be only build on i386 or amd64. This > contradicts policy and would really suck, so a no-go. > > Regards, > Daniel This does appear to violate a "should" in policy. From section 5.6.8: Specifying any indicates that the source package isn't dependent on any particular architecture and should compile fine on any one. The produced binary package(s) will be specific to whatever the current build architecture is. Because this is a 'should' and not a 'must', I don't interpret this as being a strict policy violation. There is also existing precedence for this in several packages. palo, the hppa bootloader, is probably the most directly comparable situation. Though the hppa-code is only compiled on hppa systems, it is installable on all architectures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
