On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 09:26:07PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > >> -- 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?) > > I would be inclined to say that an arch-all package failing to build > from source is "important" if it's on some reasonably fast/capable > architecture like arm64, but not really worth reporting (and if > reported, "minor" at most) if it's on a machine that no sensible person > would choose for their non-architecture-specific builds. > > One example is that I recently proposed an imagemagick patch to do the > image-resizing for its icons in build-indep, not in build-arch, so that > in practice weaker architectures wouldn't do it; it takes my laptop a > matter of seconds, and takes a mips buildd with no FPU about 15 hours > (which gets the build killed for inactivity). There is a thin line here. I'm always for not treating problems caused by handicapped arches too seriously, and when I wrote the previous email I thought only about real build problems (something similar to a compiler error in an arch:any package).
-- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
