Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:57 PM Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
> 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/> > >
