Wookey <woo...@wookware.org> writes: > If the package builds on the 32bit arches then I would advise that you > let it build. We always try to build for all arches in debian and it > is very annoying if you have say an armhf machine and something is not > available just because there was some test failure so upstream simply > excluded builds completely. Packges should only be excluded on an arch > if they are known not to build or to be genuinely useless there.
I would disagree here: If we can't support a certain package on a platform, then we shouldn't build it there. If neither upstream nor the Debian maintainer is going to support armhf, then it should not be built. For example, I have a package (iraf) that builds fine on big-endian systems but some tests fail there. I (being both upstream and the Debian maintainer) am not going for a bug hunt since I don't see a use in it, but I know that the existing bug may make some astronomical calculations (unnoticed) wrong. It is better not not have that package than a buggy package. If someone needs it, they are free to fix the problems so that we include it but unless nobody cares I will not deliver a known-buggy package by just disabling the failing tests. > If the package is available then maybe someone who cares will fix > it. If it isn't they probably won't even try. A note in the > Debian.README about this known issue would be helpful. This is only true if the bug is noticed, which is not always the case. Best Ole
