On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 04:35:15PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > I feel that arch:all packages requiring a specific architecture (or not > > buildable on amd64) are quite marginal. > On the other hand, there's a crapload of arch:all packages that fail on > !amd64 despite having no valid excuse. I've seen that a lot when doing > archive rebuilds on armhf. I never got around to reporting most of FTFBFses > -- are arch:all packages not building on other architectures worth filing > FTBFS bugs for? I think this should be reported (it's probably common sense that you should be able to rebuild a package on a given supported arch?) but what is more important is having a list of such issues in any form. What is the status of our periodical full-archive rebuilds and can we do something similar to periodically rebuild al arch:all packages om some !amd64 arch and publish failing rebuilds?
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
