On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > On 11/25/2010 07:18 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 16:25:35 +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > >> In #509702, Philipp Kern says that a particular package's list of > >> architectures should be specified in the source stanza of the control > >> file, not in the binary packages' descriptions, to avoid any attempt > >> to build the package on the rest of the architectures. > > buildd should be looking at the Architecture field in the .dsc file, > > not the debian/control file, AFAIK. > >> While this sounds as a very sensible idea, is this actually allowed and > >> used? From the wording of Policy 5.2 it seems that the Architecture > >> field is only allowed in the binary package paragraphs, and not in > >> the Source one. However, since I seem to remember some connection > >> between Philipp Kern and the Debian autobuilders, I'm inclined to > >> believe that he knows what he's talking about ;) and the autobuilders > >> will actually honor a list of architectures in the source stanza. > >> (A side point is that Policy 5.2 does not list other fields that it is > >> possible to put in the Source stanza, like Vcs-*, but that's another > >> kettle of beer) > >> So... should Policy 5.2 also list Architecture in the source stanza, > >> or should #509702 be closed with "unfortunately this is not allowed"? :) > >> (of course, the former option would be preferable if it actually works :) > > It's really not allowed, and dpkg-dev will just not honour it anyway, > > so the bug report seems confused. I've CCed Philipp, as maybe the > > report was about something else, and he wrote something different from > > what he meant? > Note that the .dsc file is part of the source package, so you probably > misinterpreted what he said? I don't know the context of your question > is, though it seems to me that you should specify in the control file in > the architecture fieled of the binary stanza(s) on which architectures > it should get built and not mention any architecture in a description field.
Yeah, what I really meant is basically having it in the .dsc and thus in the source stanza as found in Sources. In this case this doesn't work because fenix-dev is arch:all. If it wouldn't be then dpkg would propagate the binary architecture list into the .dsc and the buildds would skip it. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
