On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:06:19PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Saturday 06 May 2006 21:03, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 08:47:57PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > > > Another build problem is that ara source package produces four binary > > > packages, but two of them (ara and xara-gtk) are not supposed to be built > > > on some arches (like m68k, mips...) since they lack the native code > > > compiler. > > > > > > We can make autobuilders happy anyway, but we can not prevent users of > > > these arches (m68k, mips...) to build the source package locally (see > > > #290338, 336283) and see the failure. > > > > > > Presently we show them a message explaining the reasons, but seems it is > > > not enough explanative for some users ;-). Also dpkg-genchanges and > > > friends are not quite happy when only two of the declared binary packages > > > are being completed. Is there any sane way to convince these tools that > > > "we know what we are doing" [tm] and to shut them up ? > > > > > > I have a really ugly hack for rules which is able complete all binary > > > packages declared even on these arches lacking native code compilers. See > > > rules.hack at: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/ara/trunk/debian/?rev=0&sc=0 > > > (yes, that is ugly, but doable I think ;-) > > I'll remove that hack since it is rather uncivilized ! > > > It seems to me, that your debian/control is badly set. Please have a look > > Oh, sorry Sven, the noise was bogus (seems my memory is out of memory > lately ;-) > > Everything is fine after 1.0.10 ! E.g. if I simulate a non-native arch (like > mips, m64k) by moving away my ocamlopt and ocamlopt.opt executables then just > -byte binary packages are being produced, otherwise (e.g. on native arches) > we produce them all. This is what we need for autobuilders and > end-user-builders to be happy. I think I can close these bugs soon via > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > at what we did with some other packages, where we use s substvar to set the > > architectures that need native builds. If i remember well, spamoracle is an > > example which does what you want to do. > > Spamoracle is where you pointed by at the very first place to look at and ara > follows spamoracle ideology almost on a step by step basis. Thanks.
Ok. ... You do know about : $ cat /usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.1/native-archs alpha amd64 arm hurd-i386 i386 ia64 kfreebsd-i386 powerpc sparc and that this list should be used to generate the architecture field of the control field for native packages ? Ok, it seem to me, that given the spamroacle way, the problem is how the buildd see a package with only arch: all and arch <native archs> packages, and thus don't know what to do with it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
