Hi Santiago,
thanks for bringing this up…!
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:13:29PM +, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > +- ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_armhf
[...]
> Sometimes, packages generating "Arch: all" binary packages have good
> reasons to require that those packages are built only under certain
> architectures.
sure. (though I'm not convinced failing to debuild is a good outcome,
though not failing and building different things on different archs is
also not a good outcome…)
> 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
> architecture.
I think I shall improve the issue description to make it very clear that
this is just a meta-issue used to track that we currently get expected
FTBFS failures.
> 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".
the point of the issue was precicely to remove the "ftbfs in
reproducible builds tests" from tracker.d.o, so the maintainers arent
told there is something wrong.
> Do you think it would be possible to achieve the same result with a
> "banned packages" list which is architecture-specific instead of this
> funny issue?
yes, we could probably create another category of not-for-us or such,
but that will need quite some code changes, while adding this new issue
was very easy to do.
> (Or maybe your plan was to make the autobuilder to be aware of packages
> having this issue precisely to avoid the build?)
yeah, maybe they shouldnt be marked "ftbfs" on our pages neither. but
then its the correct result for how we build…
btw, yes, we could also rename this issue to
ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_some_archs or add new issues
ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_amd64 and
ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_i386, I'm undecided what's best.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Reproducible-builds mailing list
Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
