Adeodato Simó <d...@net.com.org.es> writes: > * Simon Josefsson [Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:39:48 +0100]: > >> >>Hi. Thanks for the report. This patch may help: >> >>-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 6), autotools-dev, gcj, fastjar >> >>+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 6), autotools-dev, gcj [!alpha !arm !hppa >> >>!hurd-i386 !sh3 !sh4], fastjar > > Yes, that patch should help. In the common case, Build-Depending on > "gcj" will just prevent the package from being tried on arches that > do not have java/gcj. But TTBOMK the experimental autobuilders don't > include the patch that manages to do that, hence it was tried. > > AFAICS, libidn provides other binaries than java package, so you really > need to apply your patch above. Otherwise, those other parts won't be > built on arches without java (and would be eternally out-of-date).
Right, I have made this change in the 1.14-2 upload. I ended up using: Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 6), autotools-dev, gcj [!arm !hppa !hurd-i386], fastjar Because only arm, hppa, and hurd-i386 are official debian architectures that lack gcj packages in unstable. >> >>The libidn11-java package is Architecture: all, so the libidn11-java >> >>package built on hppa will never be installed in the archive, right? > > If you creates -java packages that are arch:any, in addition to > debian/control, you must modify your debian/rules to handle gracefully > being built on a system without gcj. The result should be that the > libidn11-java is not built at all; you can do that with the -N switch of > debhelper. You should be able to find example code. I didn't find any example code, but I worked out something that worked on local testing. >> >>I'm not sure how to test whether the above patch is enough, other than >> >>to upload a new package. Rebuilding the package on my i386 machine >> >>will likely just work fine. Ideas? > > I suggest that you do the following test. Apply the following version of > the patch in a test package: > > - Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 6), autotools-dev, gcj, fastjar > + Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 6), autotools-dev, xxx [!i386], fastjar > > And then build your package on pbuilder passing -B. That should simulate > what the hppa buildd is going to do. Do you see it? Yup, I was able to reproduce things this way. I'm not sure exactly what the buildd's will do when it has built the package, and there is no libidn11-java package though? Hopefully it will upload the binary packages it generated, and ignore the missing package. >> >>Anibal, what do you think? > >> > https://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific > >> > Maybe list libidn11-java in Packages-arch-specific to only exclude hppa? > > P-a-s would be relevant here if libidn11-java was arch:any, and only > because libidn provides some non-java packages. I didn't understand the purpose of that file -- is it still something that we should consider? If we can solve things in the local debian/ directory, that seems preferable to me. >> Maybe a better solution is to Build-Depend on 'default-jdk' rather than >> depending on 'gcj' explicitly? I believe the libidn java port should >> build with any compliant java compiler. > > I have no idea about this, and you should ask debian-java. But I'll note > that there is no default-jdk on hppa either. I kept using gcj since that it is the preferred java compiler anyway. But this could be changed in the future if someone cares. > I hope this mail cleared things for you. Yes thank you! Hopefully it will work better with this upload, but if it doesn't I hope you still have some patience to help me make it work. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
