XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:15:10AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
I am seeking seconds for the following patch.
Thank you for working on this!
Thank you for the review, though I don't believe I need to update my
patch in light of your comments. See responses below.
- I've included the ability to specify the architectures on which the
package is known /not/ to build. This seems useful because in many
cases the architectures that don't work is precisely what the
maintainer knows, and wants to document in machine-readable form. I
don't buy the argument that it creates any additional uncertainty
Whilst you did this, I think the proper syntax is not clear by your
wording. For example, I take that
Build-Indep-Architecture: !amd64 means "this thing builds
everywhere except amd64". But then, how can I specify "it builds on
all 32-bit architectures except i386", for example?
I copied the wording from the Architecture: field. Just as it is not
possible to say that an architecture-dependent package is buildable on
all 32-bit archs except i386 without listing all those archs, it is not possible to specify that architecture-independent packages are buildable
on all 32-bit archs except i386 without listing all those archs.
We want Architecture: and Build-Indep-Architecture: to use the same
format. I don't think we should try to extend our format at this point
because there are already various parsers of Architecture:.
See the following inline comments:
+Debian machine architectures. If specified, it should be either
+ +- A unique single word identifying a Debian machine architecture
as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ described in :ref:`s-arch-spec`.
+ +- An architecture wildcard identifying a set of Debian machine
+ architectures, see :ref:`s-arch-wildcard-spec`.
This also implies a single word.
But…
+maintainer's control. The specification should entail that the
+architecture-independent packages are buildable on at least two
+architectures.
this is not compatible with the above: both cases say that you have to provide at most one word, but how can you provide at least two
architectures if you have only one word and can't use a wildcard?
It says that you /should/ provide at least two architectures. This is
not a /must/ requirement, so it should still be possible to use a unique
single word.
And if you can provide multiple words, you need to specify a separator (whitespace vs comma, I suppose).
This is detailed in the architecture wildcard spec.
Also, I dislike the sentence in itself, I believe it should be more straightforward in conveying its meaning of "pretty please at least
two arch".
It has to be that way for cases like this:
Build-Indep-architecture: !amd64
That entails that it builds on at least two architectures, but on a
common reading of 'specify', it does not specify two archs.
--
Sean Whitton
--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAlniaBwACgkQaVt65L8G YkDedRAApCwzTYBfSteJIj6zqTjU3fqIx5yKIglLiKPyLr8gDYqmMULrfkHXJryG pU+QIADMR8UPAB4tFpEl0StWuqRWC5gnGJ75FBnnuaQYv+x5Zwg8fl5CCAWkOZcW COGjL7qEWidfA+tKsp4JrKONsf85s5nTWfQGFdV2rK0f1xbI8YserdN43nxV8kO+ kfKmso9TRQRjLImxbtGHFxznyWL6YFMR0NiRZRqciBNKzDE7XGWTsx9dAeRwKSNS GlH6d8OTIItsQmBcDrQAUkaiW5Lh4w8coXuSvoERTaf1VWwvC5xubjYb1GkQMjdl hBcjN2Mc/0rN87vj2UzOGR/WXlRfZBBkX4Kqkszu91PnaEfeRzRTwgn2B+JNBEEk dnj5lyuDsfwpvdrk8rd3xGtHLjsaGyrChZUSWn2G2ZAsXrzwo9DhOpo5Q/0zdF2g iOPLv798mpg2fp64/c5aE+feTpyNkcU8hzewPTVXEDX3uhgeP2s42limo3nQNfDg m0H9e/mF2ljQlRtqRYVP8peScFCJI7wgYQmuhqLWLcoBDeplTTkR3uBbRy5Lt81m c6bNc7HtCmYle2akzDSShGvQyB3uWSWzq9605sAbbmdFeUMFznILxRBRnOxQyzKQ XPUXqn5tKH2NdLNQqq2EB6mc8N6urTHr2WuwdRc5229h9lThIfk=q0NB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)