On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:13 AM Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> Hi Michael, > > thanks for reaching out to us and reporting this…! > Of course! 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. > One of the binary packages, khmer-common, is Architecture: All, Multi-Arch: foreign. Perhaps that is why? > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds