Hi Helge, Helge Deller <del...@gmx.de> writes: > That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't exclude by default a *specific* > architecture. The problem is often not bound to that architecture, but by > the specifics which define that architecture (endianess, 32/64-bit, ...).
this brings me to the point why we don't have a way to require these specifics in a canonical way, i.e. why we don't have (pseudo) packages for endianess, word width etc. For example I observe more and more (astronomy/science) packages to be 64-bit only by design (or upstream decision), and there is no way to clearly specify this as a build condition. Just ignoring this and let them fail doesn't look very smart. Best Ole
