Yesterday night, in another email, Holger told me that perhaps those
packages that I added and then removed should be added again.
I started to write this reply but I think it is better to discuss it
here as I think it could be of general interest.
Let me start by saying that IMHO none of the packages I added to
notes.git should be tried on amd64 to begin with.
That's why I said that the best fix is for those packages not to be in
the "list of packages to be tried on amd64".
So, before adding stuff back and forth to notes.git, let me ask a simple
How do you generate the list of packages that should be tried?
In case it helps, I can tell you how I generated the list I needed
for my "dpkg-buildpackage -A" experiment using an amd64 autobuilder:
I needed a list of source packages that generate at least one
"Arch: all" package and at least one "Arch: amd64" package, so I
looked for source packages having an Architecture field
2. At least one of "any", "linux-any", "amd64" or "any-amd64"
That's exactly what nobody has been testing, the "binary-indep" target
of packages that also generate some "Arch: any" package of any kind,
but I had to restrict that to amd64 as I was using an amd64 autobuilder.
For reproducible.debian.org, it seems that you consider buildable any
package having "all" in the Architecture field in the source package.
However, something tells me that this is more than it's expected.
Let's take cmucl as an example:
Architecture: i386 all
It has "all", yes, but implicitly I take the Architecture line
as saying that I should only try to build the "Arch: all" package
using a i386 autobuilder.
Does this make sense?
Reproducible-builds mailing list