Control: merge 797347 -1 Hi,
On 25-10-2024 12:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 10:23:41 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:35:17AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:I'm not sure if this idea came up before, but as far as I can see there is no bug open about it
Seems like I didn't search well.
https://bugs.debian.org/797347 dpkg-gencontrol: option to exclude specific architectures https://bugs.debian.org/807264 dpkg: Please allow negative Architecture lists in debian/control
Those match my idea.
The alternatives suggested thus far are: * Build-Depends: architecture-is-64bit * Build-Depends: unsupported-architecture [s390x]
While the current dependency based solution feels a bit bolted on, it has the nice properties that it is self contained within an archive, it's explicit instead of implicit, and works right now.
I agree. I was aware of the architecture-is-64bit, but not (until recently) of unsupported-architecture. Maybe the biggest challenge is to share the idea. My annoyance was mostly with people writing out a list of architectures to exclude one (and forgetting to update it later when archs are added or the package gets fixed). I agree with you they shouldn't do that, a FTBFS is fine. I *guess* maintainers either don't like those FTBFS for $reasons, or the build actually doesn't fail but misbuilds. Having a declarative way in d/control to prevent that is nice, "hacking" up something in d/rules feels less nice (and for me would be more work).
So, "BD: unsupported-architecute [!arch]" it is; I'll promote it more. Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
