On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:46:36 +0200, Loïc Minier <[email protected]> wrote: > Package: yforth > Version: 0.1beta-21 > Severity: wishlist > > I see yforth lists armel armeb and arm in control, would you please > also list armhf?
Sure. > Also, I checked Packages-arch-specific and it has: > yforth: i386 m68k sparc arm armel powerpc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 # > compiler > > while your control has: > Architecture: alpha amd64 arm armeb armel hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 > kfreebsd-amd64 m68k powerpc ppc64 sparc > > what's puzzling is that you've listed 64-bits arches in control, but > debian/changelog says: > yforth (0.1beta-10) frozen unstable; urgency=low > > * update control file to account for yforth not working on 64 bit machines. > Instead of 'any', specify i386/m68k/sparc/arm. I *think* all of those > should work. Update documentation to include my best contact info for. > the upstream author, and acknowledge that there is no longer an upstream. > site for this package. Closes 32413. > > -- Bdale Garbee <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:18:24 -0700 > > so maybe it's time to revert back to Architecture: any? It looks like I did that back in 1999 to get around some problem, and then over time people have let me know various other architectures work and so I've added them back in. I think you're right, though, making it 'any' won't hurt at this point... if it doesn't build on all architectures, I may get some FTBFS bugs, but they won't be RC if the package never built on that architecture before... Bdale
pgpEiOtDeourG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
