On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 11:27:00 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Guillem Jover (2014-08-13 13:48:11) > > On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 13:27:38 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > > There are also other problems that need to be eventually addressed: as far > > > as I know there are some source packages producing arch:all binaries that > > > cannot be built on all architectures. A Build-Architecture-Indep field was > > > proposed to indicate where it should be built in this case[1], but for now > > > I think we can require that maintainers have to upload the arch:all > > > packages in this case. > > > > I think all proposed field names in that thread are rather confusing. > > In Debian packaging lingo build means several things, it can mean at > > least the build machine (!= host machine), or it can mean the act of > > building. > > > > In the case of Build-Depends style fields, it's referring to the act > > of building, but Architecture is related to the host system/compiler, > > so mixing the different meanings would be messy, think for example > > about cross-compiling. > > But is the question not *on* which architecture arch:all packages are built, > and would the term "build" in Build-Architecture-Indep thus not be correct in > both of its meanings (as "the architecture I'm building *on*" as well as "the > act of building")?
Exactly, that was precisely my point, thus why this would be very confusing. (I guess I didn't make myself clear enough :) Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140823010451.gb12...@gaara.hadrons.org
