On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:14:20PM -0300, Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz wrote: > hi all, > thanks to everyone. We have the following facts: > > * hardinfo upstream author released a new version that does not support > all architectures. > * Add support for an architecture is not so hard and I am working on it. > * hardinfo should work on all architectures supported by debian > (upstream author is so busy to work on this at this moment, but he is > aways friendly to help). > > Based on this I want this bug to be closed at this moment and support > for other architectures will be consider as a wishlist bug, not as a > release candidate bug. Making things like this will not private users > from testing to test hardinfo to detect other no-source bugs. I don't > know if you all agree with me, but I think that it is interesting to > handle this situation like I'm planning. If anyone disagree with this > please tell me. > > I am writing processor.h to other architectures and I will try to test > them one by one after testing migration.
hardinfo | 0.3.7pre-4 | unstable | m68k, s390 hardinfo | 0.4.1-5 | unstable | source, alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc So the package does build also for alpha, ia64 and arm. Is it broken on those architectures? Then you should ensure the package will not actually build on those architectures, for example by having a self-test during building, or an arch-specific explicit fail rule in debian/rules, or even just an addition to Packages-arch-specific or to the wanna-build database. I cannot remove builds as long as they are uptodate, as they are likely to come back then, resulting in a different build of the exact same version reappearing in the archive. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
