On Dienstag, 9. Februar 2016, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> I think bin/reproducible_build.sh makes a too broad assumption, that
> packages producing arch:all parts can build on "any" arch.

> dpkg-buildpackage proceeds, I think, because there are arch-indep parts
> that 'might' be able to build.  But since this package has no separate
> binary-indep target, debian/rules tries to build the arch-dep parts
> and fails there.

> The code has been much refactored since then.  Does my patch below seem
> a neat way to try to fix this again?  (Though I totally have not tested
> it).

I think it does. 
> Where I set ARCHITECTURES="any", that will not be a regression over
> current behaviour, but can be substituted for ARCHITECTURES="amd64" if
> too many arch:all packages FTBFS on armhf.
> From a759d049b1fd6deeb24985e57a3b6f4fa2e1f72b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:02:13 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] reproducible: don't always build arch:all on "any" arch
> If a package builds arch-dep parts on a restricted set of arches,
> don't assume the arch-indep parts can build on "any" arch.
> If a package *only* lists Architecture: all, keep the current behaviour:
> (linux-)amd64 will most likely work;  armhf is less likely but is nice
> to try anyway.

I've applied and deployed this patch now, thanks Steven! Currently 
lists 84 packages, I'm curious how many there will be listed in a week ;-)

For comparison in 42 days or so: https://tests.reproducible-
builds.org/unstable/armhf/index_not_for_us.html today lists 235 packages.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to