On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 10:43:19AM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:32:37PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Package: asterisk-modules
> > Version: 1:1.8.4.4~dfsg-2
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > vpb-driver (and thus libvpb0) was removed on s390 (see #644051). This
> > means that asterisk-modules is now uninstallable on that architecture in
> > unstable (and by extension asterisk).
>
> Right now asterisk has in the build dependency:
>
> libvpb-dev [linux-any]
>
> If I want to encode this extra limitation (!s390 !s390x) I would have to
> use either:
>
> libvpb-dev [!hurd-any !kfreebsd-any !s390 !s390x]
>
> or:
>
> libvpb-dev [linux-any], libvpb-dev [!s390 !s390x]
>
> Which of those would be preffered?
>
>
> As a side note, vpb-driver has: "Architecture: any" for all of its
> packages, even though it is linux-specific, AFAIK (and fails to build on
> hurd and kfreebsd[1])
>
> [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vpb-driver
Actually, that's just failing because config.{guess,sub} is old and doesn't
know about those arches. If that's fixed it should build on them just fine.
The only thing that is really linux-specific is the kernel drivers, and we
only supply a source package for those, people build the binaries with m-a.
It's known to work on BSD, there have been several ports of the kernel
drivers for that over the years. And probably could be ported to HURD too
if someone was actually interested in that.
There's no fundamental reason the binary packages aren't arch any, just
practical realities like s390 not having a PCI bus, which is what Phil was
looking at tidying up. It looks like that might be more pain than gain until
we have a better way to describe those sort of exceptions though ...
Cheers,
Ron
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
