Le vendredi, 29 avril 2011 23.27:26, Stephen Kitt a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:53:18PM +0200, Didier Raboud wrote: > > > > IMHO, this limitation is useless: it's not because we might think that > > building Windows executables on non-mainstream architectures (or OSes > > fwiw) that anyone should be forbidden to try. > > Indeed, but it comes at a significant cost on some of the buildds.
#define cost ?
Not heat production nor electrical consumption nor aging (nor …) seem
convincing arguments to me, in particular seeing what we build… :-)
> Given that the request not to specify “Architecture: any” on
> gcc-mingw-w64 comes from one of the gcc maintainers who has to deal
> with the fallout from lengthy build times fairly regularly, I'm
> inclined to respect it even though the resulting limitation is
> artificial (from an end-user's perspective).
Now that is more convincing to me. :-)
But I think it has to be tried. Without trying, I don't think we can draw the
contours of the problem. And buildd time (especially experimental's) is
relatively cheap.
> The only technical counter-argument I can see is that of potential
> reverse build-dependencies; for example nsis supports more
> architectures than {binutils,gcc}-mingw-w64, which is unfortunate. (It
> doesn't support arm though; the next version of nsis will switch to
> “Architecture: all” packages for Win32-specific files, which will
> solve the problem.)
I am working together with Thomas Gaugler to get this done "soon"…
> Thinking specifically of this bug against binutils-mingw-w64, build
> time is much less of a problem, so specifying “Architecture: any”
> would be OK there. I don't know if many people would find
> binutils-mingw-w64 useful without gcc-mingw-w64 but there might be
> some!
Yeah, I meant this bug as a discussion platform. "Obviously", gcc-mingw-w64
could follow.
> > What do you think ?
>
> I reckon it would make sense to do the following:
> * change binutils-mingw-w64 to “Architecture: any” (thus closing this
> bug);
Sounds nice.
> * change gcc-mingw-w64 to “Architecture: amd64 hurd-any i386
> kfreebsd-any powerpc s390 sparc” for now.
I don't think the "spare buildd time" rationale is enough to justify this set
of architectures. Debian doesn't have second-class architectures…
> Would that be good enough for you?
My opinion is "arch: any" for both packages, so my answer to your question is
"no".
Cheers,
--
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
