Bug#645642: Please add armhf to architecture list
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011, Bdale Garbee wrote: > It looks like I did that back in 1999 to get around some problem, and > then over time people have let me know various other architectures work > and so I've added them back in. I think you're right, though, making it > 'any' won't hurt at this point... if it doesn't build on all > architectures, I may get some FTBFS bugs, but they won't be RC if the > package never built on that architecture before... Makes sense; thanks! -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#645642: Please add armhf to architecture list
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:46:36 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > Package: yforth > Version: 0.1beta-21 > Severity: wishlist > > I see yforth lists armel armeb and arm in control, would you please > also list armhf? Sure. > Also, I checked Packages-arch-specific and it has: > yforth: i386 m68k sparc arm armel powerpc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 # > compiler > > while your control has: > Architecture: alpha amd64 arm armeb armel hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 > kfreebsd-amd64 m68k powerpc ppc64 sparc > > what's puzzling is that you've listed 64-bits arches in control, but > debian/changelog says: > yforth (0.1beta-10) frozen unstable; urgency=low > > * update control file to account for yforth not working on 64 bit machines. > Instead of 'any', specify i386/m68k/sparc/arm. I *think* all of those > should work. Update documentation to include my best contact info for. > the upstream author, and acknowledge that there is no longer an upstream. > site for this package. Closes 32413. > > -- Bdale Garbee Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:18:24 -0700 > > so maybe it's time to revert back to Architecture: any? It looks like I did that back in 1999 to get around some problem, and then over time people have let me know various other architectures work and so I've added them back in. I think you're right, though, making it 'any' won't hurt at this point... if it doesn't build on all architectures, I may get some FTBFS bugs, but they won't be RC if the package never built on that architecture before... Bdale pgpEiOtDeourG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#645642: Please add armhf to architecture list
Package: yforth Version: 0.1beta-21 Severity: wishlist Hi I see yforth lists armel armeb and arm in control, would you please also list armhf? It should work just as well as armel, the only difference being floating point calling conventions, and that's hidden by GCC AFAICT. Also, I checked Packages-arch-specific and it has: yforth: i386 m68k sparc arm armel powerpc kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 # compiler while your control has: Architecture: alpha amd64 arm armeb armel hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 m68k powerpc ppc64 sparc what's puzzling is that you've listed 64-bits arches in control, but debian/changelog says: yforth (0.1beta-10) frozen unstable; urgency=low * update control file to account for yforth not working on 64 bit machines. Instead of 'any', specify i386/m68k/sparc/arm. I *think* all of those should work. Update documentation to include my best contact info for. the upstream author, and acknowledge that there is no longer an upstream. site for this package. Closes 32413. -- Bdale Garbee Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:18:24 -0700 so maybe it's time to revert back to Architecture: any? Thanks, -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
