On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 00:14 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > 1. tammikuuta 2012 23.53 Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> kirjoitti: > > If the .dsc specifies an accurate architecture list, there's no reason > > for P-a-s to say anything about the package. In fact, doing so is > > harmful as it means maintainer changes to the architecture list won't > > automatically propagate on the buildd side. > > Wait... Do you mean that, for as long as the correct architecture is > specified in debian/control and, as a result, in the generated .dsc, > (in this case, any i386-variant), that no P-A-S entry is needed?
Yes. P-a-s is only needed when the buildd software can't accurately determine for itself whether a package should be built on a particular architecture. If the architecture list in the .dsc exactly matches the architectures on which the package should be built, everything just works[tm]. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
