Re: [Reproducible-builds] On which arch should Arch:all packages be built? addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 09:57:55AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Santiago Vila: > > If we had a case like this, an architecture field in the source > > package saying "i386 all" would mean that we could do all this: > > > > "dpkg-buildpackage" under i386 to build the i386.deb and the all.deb. > >

Re: [Reproducible-builds] On which arch should Arch:all packages be built? addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Santiago Vila: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > I think the question can be phrased as: should architecture-independent > > packages be buildable on all architectures? > > > > My own answer would be: yes, as long as they don't mandate a particular > > architectu

Re: [Reproducible-builds] On which arch should Arch:all packages be built? addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > I think the question can be phrased as: should architecture-independent > packages be buildable on all architectures? > > My own answer would be: yes, as long as they don't mandate a particular > architecture in their Build-Depends-I

[Reproducible-builds] On which arch should Arch:all packages be built? addition to scsh-0.6, we should not be trying to build these packages on amd64:

Santiago Vila: > Let's take cmucl as an example: > > Package: cmucl > Architecture: i386 all > > It has "all", yes, but implicitly I take the Architecture line > as saying that I should only try to build the "Arch: all" package > using a i386 autobuilder. > > > Does this make sense? I think th