Web lists-archives.com

Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build

On 2017-12-20 12:05 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> in spring several packages from Debian Med team received "FTBFS on i386:
> unsatisfiable build-dependencies" bug reports

> Yes, there are packages that do not build on a certain
> architecture due to missing Build-Depends.  I could exclude these
> architectures from the list of architectures in d/control.  However, as
> far as I understood that's rather a bad idea since once the
> Build-Depends might become available the package could easily build.


> So as far as I see #860655 there is no sensible means to fix it properly
> and I'm tempted to close it (since I also do not see any sense in
> tagging it wontfix).

Leaving it open wontfix makes it easy for someone to find the issue in
the future and see what decision was made and why, and that the
current situation is as correct as we can currently make it. But
closing is also OK IMHO. The reasoning will still get archived.

> May be it needs to be said that we do not have the
> manpower to fix each and every piece of code to make sure all
> Build-Depends build on every architecture neither does it make sense
> technically to for instance have gene sequencing software on outdated
> hardware available.  Some code just needs 64 bit and upstream will not
> support other hardware.

If code will not actually build or run on 32-bit systems then it's
reasonable to mark it as not for those arches, but if it could, or
might (we don't know yet), even if you think it would be uselessly
slow, I'd leave the option open (i.e. allow the package to build if
all the build-deps are available).

> Am I missing something?

Not that I can see. You understand the situation. One of the good
things about debian is the availablity of software for many
architectures. We shouldn't restrict that any more than we have to.

As a porter I notice quite a few packages where the maintainer has
made things 'tidy' by giving an explicit architecture list when really
the unlisted ones were really just 'doesn't build there yet, or arch
is new since I made the list', so making such a list was
unhelpful. Often they really wanted to make a 'doesn't build on arch
foo' list but we didn't have a mechanism for that (that's still not
fixed SFAIK). So not giving a list at all is good if it can be

Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature