On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote...
> > I see two problems in that code:
> > * it's Launchpad-specific
> > * it supports only a single build-indep architecture rather than a list
>
> Um, yes, perhaps, no. The important thing to me is there's
Adam Borowski wrote...
> I see two problems in that code:
> * it's Launchpad-specific
> * it supports only a single build-indep architecture rather than a list
Um, yes, perhaps, no. The important thing to me is there's already
something around that solves a problem I have. Of course this header
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 06:27:55PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Colin Watson (2016-11-12 18:09:22)
> > > * it supports only a single build-indep architecture rather than a list
> >
> > Not so; you have misread the code. It is a list of architectures that
> > architecture-independent
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 05:47:00PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 15:13 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > If manually specifying that is needed, pixfrogger is another case that
> > should declare a list rather than a single arch: i386 is basically gone
> > other than hardware
On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 15:13 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
[...]
> If manually specifying that is needed, pixfrogger is another case that
> should declare a list rather than a single arch: i386 is basically gone
> other than hardware emulation on amd64, armhf is a better supported 32-bit
> arch these
Hi,
Quoting Colin Watson (2016-11-12 18:09:22)
> > * it supports only a single build-indep architecture rather than a list
>
> Not so; you have misread the code. It is a list of architectures that
> architecture-independent binary packages can be on.
>
> > I propose the new field to be a list
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 03:13:54PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 09:56:01AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote...
> > > We know this not to have been the case in the past.
> > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/217427 mentions the cases of
> > >
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 01:50:32PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > There is currently one package in the Debian archive (pixfrogger) that
> > > declares "Build-Indep-Architecture: i386" in its .dsc because, even
> > > though it builds an architecture-independent binary package, building it
> > >
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 09:56:01AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote...
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:52:15PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > > That's a good theoretical argument. But in practice, I think the subset
> > > of architectures for which bar works correctly will always
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 09:56:01AM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote...
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:52:15PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > > That's a good theoretical argument. But in practice, I think the subset
> > > of architectures for which bar works correctly will always
Colin Watson wrote...
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:52:15PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > That's a good theoretical argument. But in practice, I think the subset
> > of architectures for which bar works correctly will always include
> > amd64, and John D. Rebuilder will have access to such a
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:52:15PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Nov 11 2016, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > b) This is a serious issue as John D. Rebuilder should be free to choose
> >on which architecture to build "src:foo".
> >
> > Personally, I tend to b)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> implies "src:foo" must build on *all* architectures
In general, Debian does not define the build architecture for any
package, no matter what the Architecture of the package is.
In practice, arch:all packages must build on either amd64
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> How would this affect your assessment of the situation?
The details matter, without them I don't think any assessment is useful.
> In my feeling, revealing the packages' names would give the story some kind of
> blaming. That's not my
Paul Wise wrote...
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>
> > Other suggestions?
>
> Include information about which packages/issues you are talking about.
How would this affect your assesment of the situation?
In my feeling, revealing the pakages' names would give the
Nikolaus Rath wrote...
> Just fix it in "bar", and don't bother worrying about the right
> severity?
If it was that simple ... The maintainers of "bar" haven't reacted to
the bug report for a few months although it contains a clear statement
the current state breaks the build of other packages.
On Nov 11 2016, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> b) This is a serious issue as John D. Rebuilder should be free to choose
>on which architecture to build "src:foo".
>
> Personally, I tend to b) since
>
> * there is no sane way for the maintainer to tell the world which
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Other suggestions?
Include information about which packages/issues you are talking about.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hello,
it is the nature of an arch:all binary package it can be installed on
any architecture regardless on which architecture it has been build.
Given this I deduced I'm at liberty on which architecture I'd want to
rebuild such a package, but I saw disagreement. So I'm asking for
clarification:
19 matches
Mail list logo