On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:00:56AM +1300, Olly Betts wrote: > In policy 3.9.3.0 (at least according to upgrading-checklist.txt): > > 5.6.8 > The `Architecture' field in `*.dsc' files may now contain the > value `any all' for source packages building both > architecture-independent and architecture-dependent packages. > > The current 5.6.8 does describe `any all`, but unfortunately it also still > contains this paragraph which is no longer correct since this change: > > In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field > may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard > `any', or a list of specific and wildcard architectures separated by > spaces. If `all' or `any' appears, that value must be the entire > contents of the field. Most packages will use either `all' or `any'. > > I'd suggest updating this to: > > In the main `debian/control' file in the source package, this field > may contain the special value `all', the special architecture wildcard > `any', the special combination `any all`, or a list of specific and > wildcard architectures separated by spaces. If `all', `any', or > `any all` appears, that value must be the entire contents of the > field. Most packages will use either `all', `any', or `any all`.
I think this proposed change would be a mistake. Any individual binary package listed in debian/control must either be architecture-dependent or architecture-independent; it is meaningless for it to be both. Section 5.2 makes it clear that Architecture may only occur in the binary package paragraphs in debian/control, not in the general paragraph at the top, and so the values of Architecture in debian/control may only be those that are meaningful for a single binary package. Contrariwise, the value of Architecture in the .dsc is an aggregation constructed by dpkg-source of the Architecture fields for all binary packages built by that source package. It is therefore meaningful for it to express a combination of architecture-dependent and architecture-independent binary packages. I would recommend closing this bug with no further action. The current text appears correct to me. -- Colin Watson [[email protected]]
