Hello,
We have been discussing a bit on #debian-ports about packages that fail
to build on less-mainstream architectures.
The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
on these archs (and then possibly s
Hi Samuel,
On 11-09-2022 17:08, Samuel Thibault wrote:
We could for instance:
- Add an Architecture-FTBFS field to debian/control
- Add an environment variable to debian/rules so that on these archs dh
fails with a different exit code that buildds would notice.
- Add a Architecture-FTBFS fiel
Paul Gevers, le dim. 11 sept. 2022 21:16:08 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 11-09-2022 17:08, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > We could for instance:
> > - Add an Architecture-FTBFS field to debian/control
> > - Add an environment variable to debian/rules so that on these archs dh
> >fails with a different exit
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:25:40PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul Gevers, le dim. 11 sept. 2022 21:16:08 +0200, a ecrit:
> >
> > - color packages that "never" had a successful built on an architecture
> > different. That information is already available because that's what marks
> > the pack
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>...
> The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
> the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
> on these archs (and then possibly succeeding after some time whenever
> somebody co
Hi,
Am 11.09.22 um 22:07 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 05:08:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
...
The issue we see is that some DDs end up setting a hardcoded list in
the "Architecture" field, rather than just letting builds keep failing
on these archs (and then possibly succe
