Bug#509702: Source architecture field?

[Peter Pentchev]

Hi,

In #509702, Philipp Kern says that a particular package's list of
architectures should be specified in the source stanza of the control
file, not in the binary packages' descriptions, to avoid any attempt
to build the package on the rest of the architectures.

While this sounds as a very sensible idea, is this actually allowed and
used?  From the wording of Policy 5.2 it seems that the Architecture
field is only allowed in the binary package paragraphs, and not in
the Source one.  However, since I seem to remember some connection
between Philipp Kern and the Debian autobuilders, I'm inclined to
believe that he knows what he's talking about ;) and the autobuilders
will actually honor a list of architectures in the source stanza.
(A side point is that Policy 5.2 does not list other fields that it is
possible to put in the Source stanza, like Vcs-*, but that's another
kettle of beer)

So... should Policy 5.2 also list Architecture in the source stanza,
or should #509702 be closed with "unfortunately this is not allowed"? :)
(of course, the former option would be preferable if it actually works :)

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev	roam at space.bg    roam at ringlet.net    roam at FreeBSD.org
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
because I didn't think of a good beginning of it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20101125/593b70eb/attachment.pgp>