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…!
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
> > 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-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
> builds.org/rbuild/testing/armhf/khmer_2.0+dfsg-3.rbuild.log where the line
> "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
> 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
> however there's a bug somewhere.
Reproducible-builds mailing list