On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Chow Loong Jin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/09/2011 20:42, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: [...] >> I was told that my arch should not be set to all since mono is not >> available on -say- hppa. Policy requires it should be 'any' (*) ? >> (*) >> http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/ch-packaging.html#s-architecture > > According to your link, -cil packages with 100% managed code (i.e. only > .dll/.exe files to be used with mono), architecture should be set to all. And > that is the case for libgpod-cil. > > However, it's not the same for your package, as you have some .so files inside > your -cil packages, so you'd have two options: > - Split out the glue libraries in the -cil package (.so files?) into a > separate, Arch: any package.
That will not change anything AFAIK. my -cil package will Requires: a package that will not be available on mips, mipsel, sparc64 ... > - Keep your architecture narrowing as is, and forget what I mentioned about > shifting the mono-specific build-deps to Build-Depends-Indep. dh_listpackages > should list -cil packages for the relevant architectures, so the example > debian/rules snippet I previously posted should work. Basically my question was that any new arch added to ports that does not support mono (*) needs to be explicitely added in my control file. I wanted to have something more ''system-based inspection" to determine whether or not to build the -cil package. -- Mathieu (*) looking at ports today I realised the complete gdcm package is not available on sparc64 since only the sub-package -cil makes it require mono... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+7wuswr+o21r+vstkbkbzh8np21shj8awkn-glxd_-yade...@mail.gmail.com
