Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> writes: > I didn't find a previous discussion on this: it would be useful to > support negated architecture specifications in the debian/control > Architecture field, so that we can e.g. write:
> Architecture: !s390 !s390x > (for xorg stuff) > Architecture: !hppa !hurd-any !kfreebsd-any > (for java stuff) > and even things like > Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any !hppa !m68k-any > which would be understood as [ (linux-any or kfreebsd-any) and not hppa > and not m68k-any ]. I.e. if no positive specification is set, an "any" > positive specification is assumed. > That would help to remove quite a few entries of > https://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/experimental/Packages-arch-specific > and avoid packages with some java bits to have to hardcode the list of > ports on which java jni bindings packages should be built. > I guess support would be needed in dpkg, lintian, etc. Hi Samuel, I agree that this would be useful. This has come up frequently over the years, and back when I was maintaining architecture-specific packages, the lack of this feature was often annoying. But (as may be obvious from the long delay in even getting a response), Policy can't drive the implementation of this change and therefore probably isn't a good place to start with the request. I think it would need to start with dpkg and ftp-master (for DAK). I'm therefore probably going to have to close this bug against Policy as unactionable since I don't know of any efforts towards implementing this support, and Policy would only be able to change once the support is available. If I misunderstood the current state, please do let me know. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
