On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:28:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > "Build-Architecture-Indep" might also work and is visually similar to > the already existing "Build-Depends-Indep" and "Build-Conflicts-Indep" > fields.
Erm, I swear I didn't ignore your feedback; this is what I meant, I just typed it wrong. Either way, the field name is likely the easy part :) > > BTW; the syntax would define a single arch; you know, in the spirit of > > reproducability. > > I think allowing multiple architectures is more technically correct: not > restricting the build to specific architectures implies "any" so we > allow muliple architectures already. > > For the implementation we might want to have a priority list. The first > architecture from the priority list that is allowed in Build-Arch-Indep > (or whatever) would build the arch:all packages. The list would likely > start with amd64 or i386 so that arch:all packages without > Build-Arch-Indep would be built on amd64 (i386). I have yet to go through the other thread, but I assume the only objection still remaining is that having it be a single arch is troublesome. So, building off this mail (and ideas I had kicking around): | Build-Depends-Indep field is defined as a list of architectures that the | arch indep packages may be built on. | | Architectures are parsed as splitting on whitespace (space, tab and | newline) as delimiter between the raw values. A package which defines | non-"any" values may not define "any" in the list of values. The values | are defined with the same values as the Architecture field, with the | exception of "all". | | "any" may be interpreted as the prefered arch, which is advised (but not | required) to be amd64. If multiple values are provided, the first value | (only) will be used to build the arch:all package. Any arguments on this rough concept? I figure we can treat the list sorta like we do with OR'd Build-Depends (after all, aren't they really similar in the end?), so that we ensure a deterministic build host arch, and allow for fallback for buildd setups that may not have a few arches. Comments? Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
