On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote: > Dear mentors, > > I maintain the wine-gecko package (wine-gecko-1.4), which is in an > interesting situation because its build-dependencies can't be satisfied on all > architectures, but it builds an "Architecture: all" package. Something > similar was discussed in March, and as I understand it the consensus was that > this isn't a problem, and when the buildds start rebuilding > architecture-independent packages the "Build-Architecture" control field will > allow us to specify where packages should be built. > > I'm wondering what to do about http://bugs.debian.org/684844 - an RC bug > filed because wine-gecko FTBFS on amd64 (which is missing one of the > build-dependencies, wine-bin). I've uploaded a fix to experimental, but it > seems ugly to me: I made the package "Architecture: any", so it only builds > on architectures with the full build-dependency set. This still meets the > requirements on the package, but means multiple buildds spend time building > the same thing... > > Should I just mark the bug "wontfix" with an explanation? Or should I keep my > "fix"?
I think it would be more appropriate to just close the bug with a message indicating that the package should be built on a system with multiarch enabled; where the wine-bin dependency would be satisfied via wine-bin:i386. Lucas's automated builds don't take that into account. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MM4FTg+Q5n_FYyA6p-183bHMfioVAcjBjrdfmo=zc+...@mail.gmail.com
