Am 05.10.2015 um 12:48 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 05/10/2015 12:18, Markus Koschany a écrit : > >> I think we should determine if upstream supports ppc64el. If not, it is >> reasonable to remove ppc64el and other affected ports from the >> Architecture field. > > I don't know, for some packages we do not exclude the unsupported > architectures explicitly so the builders can attempt the build and > identify the portability issue. For example with openjfx, I initially > restricted the build to i386/amd64 but I was later asked to remove the > limitation (#765397).
I think it's ok to initially build with arch:any as long as there is sufficient support from upstream. However if it turns out that some arch-dependent packages are unusable and upstream does not intend to fix this, we should not claim that we can. I think restricting the build to supported architectures is sensible then. Like I said I don't know if those architectures are supported now. Back in April Tony wrote that upstream has started to work on architecture support. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482#21 Perhaps something has changed in the latest version? Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
