Hi, 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.
indeed > 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. indeed > 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 https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/unstable/amd64/index_not_for_us.html 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. cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproduciblefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds