Hello Again, On 27/12/13 21:17, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 09:02:49PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> thanks for the reply. > >> On 27/12/13 20:45, Steve Langasek wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 07:53:32PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >>>> Hello List, > >>>> I am maintaining a package, FireHOL not to name it, which basically >>>> contains bash sources. So it Architecture was set up to all by one of >>>> my predecessor. Meanwhile, kfreebsd support emerged. >>>> As FireHOL is meant to manage iptables, it is de facto meant for linux: >>>> http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=firehol (bottom) >>>> Therefore, may I restrict Architecture to linux-any ? > >>> You *may* do so, but why bother? > >> Because debcheck complains. > > Then perhaps debcheck should be fixed. > >> The package already depends on the >>> architecture-dependent iptables, and is therefore uninstallable on >>> kfreebsd. >>> So there doesn't seem to be any harm to having the package be Architecture: >>> all. > >> Will setting Architecture to linux-all create more harm ? > > It will increase the size of the archive with redundant packages, for very > little reason. > > In the case of firehol, the harm is small, of course. But we wouldn't want > to do this /as a rule/. Consider the not-improbable case of a large Arch: > all data package for a game that fails to build on kfreebsd. Should the > data package be marked Architecture: any, so that it's not available on > architectures where the game engine package is absent, if this would cost us > a gigabyte (or more) of space in the archive? No, it shouldn't; which > demonstrates that debcheck-cleanness is a wrong metric to use.
I got the point: I let Architecture to all Thanks, Jerome > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52bde370.5020...@rezozer.net
