Hi, Am Samstag, den 27.02.2010, 16:19 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva: > Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sáb Fev 27 13:04:45 -0300 2010: > (...) > > Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 23:24 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e > > Silva: > > > Do you thing it worths to try a build on all architectures that doesn't have > > > GHCi, knowing that they will fail, for all new versions of these packages, just > > > to make sure that, when ghci works on them, they'll build too? I don't think > > > it's a good exchange here. > > > > but it’s not what the Architecture field is for, AFAIK. The correct > > thing to do is to have the non-working package/arch combination entered > > in the not-for-us database of the buildd system, so that the package > > will not be tried for building. But this is, also AFAIK, the job of the > > porters. > > Besides it, do you think we should use any or the architecture list in the > Architecture: field? If the architectures are in not-for-us, the build will > not be tried anyway, so I don't see a reason to change it to any. I think "any" should be used unless the _usage_ of the package in question is not restricted to a certain arch (such as boot loaders etc.). Since that does not apply here, I guess we can use "any" in every haskell package.. We could also just have ghc provide "ghci" on arches where it is available, and build-depend on that. Now that I think of it, this seems to be the cleanest solution :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil