Hi Michael, thanks for reaching out to us and reporting this…!
On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016, Michael R. Crusoe wrote: > I think you all are the bee's knees. However, some of the packages I > maintain aren't compatible with 32 bit architectures, like armhf, and are > explicitly marked as such. Yet the reproducible builds infrastructure still > tries to build on the incompatible architecture and I get an error on > tracker.d.o and elsewhere. > > Here is an example: > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/khmer.html > > Package: khmer > Architecture: amd64 any-arm64 any-mips64 any-mips64el any-ia64 any-ppc64el > any-sparc64 > (from https://sources.debian.net/src/khmer/2.0%2Bdfsg-4/debian/control/ ) khmer is being tried to build (on armhf), because it has "all" in the Architecture field, at least as seen on https://tests.reproducible- builds.org/rbuild/testing/armhf/khmer_2.0+dfsg-3.rbuild.log where the line reads: "Architecture: any-amd64 any-arm64 any-mips64 any-mips64el any-ia64 any- ppc64el any-sparc64 any-s390x all ppc64" This line is coming from the .dsc file, see http://httpredir.debian.org/debian/pool/main/k/khmer/khmer_2.0+dfsg-3.dsc I have no idea why the .dsc file differs from the control file. > Could, perhaps, this not happen? That's surely the idea as you can see if you compare https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/unstable/amd64/index_not_for_us.html with https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/unstable/armhf/index_not_for_us.html however there's a bug somewhere. cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds