Frank Küster dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:15:15PM +0100]: > This whole argument is bogus. Up to before Vancouver, we always said: > "A package should be Architecture: any if it can in principle be > compiled on every arch; the fact that it might not be useful there does > not justify excluding it from that arch." And AFAIK the rationale for > this was overall quality of the distribution. > > Now with the requirement for 98% compiled (and N<=2 buildd's being able > to take the workload) the focus has shifted: From overall quality to > timely release and quality of individual architectures. > (...)
Ummm... What do you think about this: There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable, anyway, as a QA measure - many subtle bugs appear as the result of architecture-specific quirks. "Architecture: any" means "build anywhere". We could introduce a second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too busy doing other stuff, and probably would not enter our archive (or would enter a different section - just as we now have contrib and non-free, we could introduce not-useful ;-) ) Would such a measure be enough for you? Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
