على الأحد 24 تـمـوز 2016 05:32، كتب Jonathan Wiltshire: > On 2016-07-23 23:14, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >> >> mhap is arch:all. libssw-java contains Java bindings for its C library >> and is not supported on i386. The dependencies are not broken. I hope >> this is a clear enough explanation. > > Yes, I know all that, but your dependencies are still broken. Your > package is uninstallable on any architecture other than amd64. >
I thought arch:all meant that the package doesn't have architecture-dependent files, not that it's supposed to be usable on every single one. Barring porting libssw to i386 or reducing functionality of the package to remove dependency on libssw, would you prefer that I declare mhap as arch:any so that it only builds for architectures where it will be installable? Then we'll have multiple copies of the exact same package for amd64, kfreebsd-amd64, and x32. > For performance reasons britney only tests installability on amd64 and > i386 (hence the message), otherwise the list would be much longer. > > A package cannot migrate if it is not installable on the test > architectures. > For the purposes of mhap, it is a package for scientific research and would probably not be usable on i386 even if it could be installed there. It requires more powerful processors than anything that is i386 that I am aware of (besides am64 CPUs posing as such, but the package works on x32 anyway). If you really want me to jump through this hoop, I will be disabling some functionality of the mhap package. I'm hoping it won't come to this. Afif -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name
