Rudy Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Regarding this issue I was thinking about it since I've faced in a > situation where a package[0] I maintain does have "high" hardware > requirements, which led me to think if it is really wise to have it > with "arch: any" since probably in some arches it would not ever be > installed/used, or even if case it will run really slow or even crash > and the user will not enjoy the software as was intended by upstream, > so maybe it doesn't make sense to have this software sent to > autobuilders and waste their resources/time for this, probably there > are more software with the same kind of hw reqs. in Debian.
I think it's up to the buildd folks to decide a question like this. They can add it to the buildd exceptions table and not build it or request that you take an arch out of the arch list. But I would rely on them to take the initiative. It can be the right thing to do, but I would be annoyed if I had such a machine, and the maintainer of the package decided it "couldn't" work on mine when I knew it actually could. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
