[ Note: this is a reply to a message from reproducible-commits,
trimming the subject just a little bit ]
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:49:10PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> + description: |
> + Package build-indep target will fail on armhf.
> + deterministic: True
> description: |
> FTBFS with some unrelated values of the environment variables (lang,
> timezone, ...)
> diff --git a/packages.yml b/packages.yml
> index 362d7b7..d417fcb 100644
> --- a/packages.yml
> +++ b/packages.yml
> @@ -1006,6 +1006,10 @@ bobcat:
> version: 4.01.04-1
> - random_order_in_static_libraries
> + version: 2.6-5
> + issues:
> + - ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_armhf
This new issue is a little bit surprising.
Sometimes, packages generating "Arch: all" binary packages have good
reasons to require that those packages are built only under certain
In the case of "bochs", there are some hints about the reasons in
Bug #481147 (which I closed recently because, well, it seemed "as
fixed as it can be" to me).
A similar case also happens with the "aboot" package, which generates an
"Arch: all" package which apparently may only be generated under the
alpha architecture (see Bug #805988).
An "issue" suggests to me "something which has eventually to be fixed",
but frankly, I don't think we should really require that those
packages generate their "Arch: all" binary packages from any other
So, instead of "this package needs to be fixed", those packages would
maybe deserve a "this package should not be built on such architecture
because it is simply not supposed to work".
Do you think it would be possible to achieve the same result with a
"banned packages" list which is architecture-specific instead of this
(Or maybe your plan was to make the autobuilder to be aware of packages
having this issue precisely to avoid the build?)
Reproducible-builds mailing list