Le 14/07/2016 à 15:07, Santiago Vila a écrit : > What you call "binary upload" is mostly an upload which includes all > the "Arch: all" binary packages.
Yes > If you were able to provide all the "Arch: any" binary packages, failure > to build in the official autobuilders would not be serious, then? At this point this becomes too theoretical, what you describe here is not what a DD usually do. I prefer to remain on the practical side and observe than uploading arch indep packages is common, while uploading all arch any packages is not. -A failures have no impact because the arch all packages are already built by the DD. -B failures have a real impact because it renders the package unavailable on the architectures other than the one used by the DD. Hence the different severity between -A and -B failures. So let's remain pragmatic and call "serious" something that is really serious for our users. > Or even better: Consider a source package which only builds "Arch: all" > binary packages. Suppose your package has a missing build-depends but > it builds ok in your computer because you have installed the > build-dependency in your chroot. Since you provide all the "Arch: all" > packages, would it be ok not to consider the FTBFS in an official > autobuilder as serious? I agree but that's a different case, this is just a plain old FTBFS. This issue is about "dpkg-buildpackage" working but not "dpkg-buildpackage -A". __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers>. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.