Hi! On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 19:51:17 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > 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.
> > >> 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 was going by what was written in #509702. > > 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. Oh, yeah Peter's description of the bug report seems a bit confused too. :) > 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. Ok, so this is related to the bug in dpkg-dev for which you provided a patch some time ago (#526617), and it seems a simple sourceful upload for fenix would fix the Architecture field in the .dsc file. I don't see any problem in fenix-plugins though, so it should probably be reassigned back? debian-policy should probably be dropped further on. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101125192313.ga6...@gaara.hadrons.org
