Le mercredi 08 octobre 2025 à 10:11 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit : > On Wed, 2025-10-08 at 10:00 +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Le 08/10/2025 à 09:49, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit : > > > > > Could you therefore limit the ocaml-native-compilers build- > > > > > dependency to the > > > > > architectures which actually have a native OCaml compiler and > > > > > allow the other > > > > > architectures to use byte-code? > > > > > > > > The goal to put ocaml-native-compilers in Build-Depends was > > > > exactly to > > > > avoid builds on bytecode architecture... Because at that time, > > > > coq was > > > > randomly broken and upstream did not want to support that > > > > configuration. > > > > > > I verified that it builds fine on multiple targets without native > > > compiler > > > support. > > > > > > > Did something change? > > > > > > Looks like as the failures are gone. > > > > Did you try reverse dependencies as well? > > I actually uploaded coq 9.1.0 to unreleased for sparc64 and I had > hoped for > the packages to start building, but it still shows BD-Uninstallable > for coq-hott, > so I will have to try manually. > > I will report back. > > Adrian
Ah, I forgot to answer about the whitelisting : unless they changed their mind, they are not interested in supporting non-native compilation, so even if it happens to work at the moment, I'm reluctant to start shipping packages on architectures which I know upstream doesn't care about: I don't feel I would be able to do anything by my own if some broke at some point. I might close this bug as a won't-fix eventually - keeping it open for now to make it clear I'm not against the idea per se. I reject it for some good reasons, but I'd like to be proven wrong. Cheers, J.Puydt
