On Thursday 29 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > >> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages > >> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked. > > > > Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and what buildds use. > > > >> But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting > >> why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus? > > > > They are. > > Well, not really. As long as a package is not in P-a-s on that > architecture it's still a bug either because it has to be added to P-a-s > or because it should build on that architecture (eventually after adding > support).
Lamont, Since you are listed as one of the maintainers of Packages-arch-specific (last edited on 2008/04/15 16:42:48 lamont Exp $) could you please ensure that the source packages of ara and spamoracle will *not* be autobuilt on the following architectures: alpha, arm, armel, hppa, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390. The reason is that the above listed architectures don't have ocamlopt (the native compiler) to built their arch-dependant parts. For these architectures are provided <pkg>-byte binary packages which are arch: all and which are built only once and run on all arches. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
