Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl> writes: > On 10/14/24 2:42 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: >> The package names starts with r-cran. > > Time is better spent on updating the tooling to add > architecture-is-64-bit to the build dependencies for those packages, > as well as generating RM bug reports for the partial removals on [i386 > armel armhf].
Is that the recommended solution for packages that wants to stop supporting 32-bit architectures? Some of the *-wrapper packages (e.g., socket-wrapper, see #1069450) became FTBFS after the t64 upload, and I haven't seen any solution except to stop supporting those architectures. I used the 'not-supported-on [armel armhf]' approach instead of 'architecture-is-64-bit' in my last upload, but there are still reverse dependencies on armel/armhf. Could there be some automatic magic to transitively remove 32-bit binaries of packages where the most recent upload of a package uses 'architecture-is-64-bit'? The manual work involved to remove packages from the archive leads to people disabling self tests on those architectures to avoid build failures, but this just masks the problem that the package no longer works reliably on armel/armhf. The number of reverse dependencies for me is manageable, but the consequences of the i386 decision for Charles seems sub-optimal. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
