It looks fixed on my end; thanks!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:13 PM Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> 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.
Reproducible-builds mailing list