Hi, In #509702, Philipp Kern says that a particular package's list of architectures should be specified in the source stanza of the control file, not in the binary packages' descriptions, to avoid any attempt to build the package on the rest of the architectures.
While this sounds as a very sensible idea, is this actually allowed and used? From the wording of Policy 5.2 it seems that the Architecture field is only allowed in the binary package paragraphs, and not in the Source one. However, since I seem to remember some connection between Philipp Kern and the Debian autobuilders, I'm inclined to believe that he knows what he's talking about ;) and the autobuilders will actually honor a list of architectures in the source stanza. (A side point is that Policy 5.2 does not list other fields that it is possible to put in the Source stanza, like Vcs-*, but that's another kettle of beer) So... should Policy 5.2 also list Architecture in the source stanza, or should #509702 be closed with "unfortunately this is not allowed"? :) (of course, the former option would be preferable if it actually works :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@space.bg r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 because I didn't think of a good beginning of it.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
