On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 06:03:36PM -0600, Matt Taggart wrote: > The new lsbappchk package > will FTBFS on several architectures due to the following code in > src/tests/elfchk/proginterp.c,
I'm inclined towards (a) trying to support all our arches, but not necessarily succeeding and (b) arch:any and having unsupported arches FTBFS or otherwise listing the supported arches specifically. > a.) only support the architectures that upstream claims to support > * all lsb packages should list only those archs in Architecture: > * the lsb package should only create symlinks for only those archs > * the above lsbappchk file above, and other such cases, should > support only those archs Having an lsb package on all arches (even ones that don't comply with the arch-spec because there /isn't/ an arch spec yet) seems reasonable. Having the tests not exist on arches where they don't build isn't unreasonable. > b.) support all debian architectures > * the lsb packages should be Architecture: any or all > * the lsb package should create symlinks for all archs(this might > mean making decisions that upstream normally makes, where the > symlink would point and the official arch name) > * other lsb packages would need Debian specific changes to add > support for architectures that upstream does not (yet) support > c.) some combination > > I'm leaning towards option b, but I haven't thought through all the > implications. I don't think it much matters? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
