Jon Bernard <jbern...@debian.org> (18/11/2009): > Perhaps it would be appropriate to set Architecture: to i386 and > amd64 only for the moment until we have a change to resolve these > issues? I suspect I'll need to create the necessary patches as I > doubt Mathieu (upstream) has access to the hardware in which this > package fails to build. > > What is your opinion on how best to proceed? Is it okay to allow the > FTBFS to exist while I work on the patches? Or is it better to > disable those architectures now and re-enable them once the build is > working again?
Having the FTBFSes around isn't an issue: they don't even prevent your package from migrating. Please note that instead of blindly disabling an architecture because of an FTBFS at a given point in time, it's usually better to wait for a patch (possibly actively working on it;) As an example, the FTBFS due to 'ant' is a debhelper bug, it wouldn't have been nice to have disabled 2 archs just for that. If a given architecture (or a couple of) was to slow down/prevent migration, one could even think of removing the old binaries, so that no archs would be out-of-date. But that's another story (see dd@ past days). Please don't restrict Architecture list. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
