Re: Architecture in *.dsc files

[Russ Allbery]

Jonathan Yu  writes:

> This is probably a stupid question, but...
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Russ Allbery  wrote:
>> Currently, Policy's description of Architecture includes the statement:
>>
>>In the main debian/control file in the source package, or in the
>>source package control file .dsc, one may specify a list of
>>architectures separated by spaces, or the special values any or all.
>>
>> By my reading, this says that the Architecture field may be *either* a
>> list of architectures *or* one of any or all.  However, the current
>> dpkg-dev appears to generate an Architecture line that includes both
>> architectures and special values like "all".
>
> I'm curious, which package(s) do this? What is the idea of doing so?
> Is it like saying, "build specially on these architectures; otherwise
> just use 'all'"? Or am I missing the point of it completely?

I noticed it with the openafs package, whose compiled code only works
with a restricted set of architectures but which also includes a
documentation package that's arch: all.

The Architecture field in the .dsc file isn't something that the package
is responsible for.  dpkg-dev creates it based on the Architecture
fields in debian/control.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526617 appears to be
the relevant change.  I have no problem with this change -- it looks
correct to me.  It just means the Policy wording is wrong, and I'd
rather get a definitive statement about what Policy *should* say and
what the meaning of possible .dsc Architecture field contents are.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Architecture in *.dsc files

[Jonathan Yu]

Hi:

This is probably a stupid question, but...

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> Currently, Policy's description of Architecture includes the statement:
>
>    In the main debian/control file in the source package, or in the
>    source package control file .dsc, one may specify a list of
>    architectures separated by spaces, or the special values any or all.
>
> By my reading, this says that the Architecture field may be *either* a
> list of architectures *or* one of any or all.  However, the current
> dpkg-dev appears to generate an Architecture line that includes both
> architectures and special values like "all".

I'm curious, which package(s) do this? What is the idea of doing so?
Is it like saying, "build specially on these architectures; otherwise
just use 'all'"? Or am I missing the point of it completely?
>
> I can see why this was done, and I think it's a more accurate portrayal
> of what the source package generates.  However, it means that Policy is
> wrong and needs to be changed.
>
> What should it say instead?  I assume that the current language should
> be retained for debian/control, but the specification for .dsc is now
> different.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)               
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Architecture in *.dsc files

[Russ Allbery]

Currently, Policy's description of Architecture includes the statement:

In the main debian/control file in the source package, or in the
source package control file .dsc, one may specify a list of
architectures separated by spaces, or the special values any or all.

By my reading, this says that the Architecture field may be *either* a
list of architectures *or* one of any or all.  However, the current
dpkg-dev appears to generate an Architecture line that includes both
architectures and special values like "all".

I can see why this was done, and I think it's a more accurate portrayal
of what the source package generates.  However, it means that Policy is
wrong and needs to be changed.

What should it say instead?  I assume that the current language should
be retained for debian/control, but the specification for .dsc is now
different.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org