Carl Fürstenberg <[email protected]> writes: > The best indication we could see would be "When a binary package can be > used on every architecture, then it should be arch all".
Yes, that sounds right to me. > Though if it should be policy or dev ref wasn't resolved (I think it > should be in policy, but others disagree). It seems more like a Policy thing to me, but I'm not sure what the counterarguments are. > But besides policy there might be a way to catch package which are > clearly mislabeled. For example, if a package provides an > non-arch-dependent executable script only, (i.e. perl script in */bin"), > and no other binary files is distributed (i.e. only text files under > share/etc), then it should be arch all? Under nearly all circumstances (in other words, probably good enough for a Lintian check), that's correct, but there would be some need for overrides depending on what the Perl script does. There are arch-dependent Perl scripts that use specific system facilities or use pack or unpack in particular ways, but they are fairly rare. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
