Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-12-04 Thread Adam Borowski
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-12-04 Thread Christoph Biedl
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Colin Watson
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Colin Watson
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Ben Hutchings
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Johannes Schauer
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Colin Watson
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 > > >

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Steve Langasek
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 > > >

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Adam Borowski
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Colin Watson
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-12 Thread Christoph Biedl
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-11 Thread Colin Watson
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)

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-11 Thread Paul Wise
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-11 Thread Paul Wise
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-11 Thread Christoph Biedl
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-11 Thread Christoph Biedl
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.

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-10 Thread Nikolaus Rath
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

Re: Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-10 Thread Paul Wise
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

Building architecture:all packages

2016-11-10 Thread Christoph Biedl
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: