Bug#509702: Source architecture field?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 19:51:17 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > On 11/25/2010 07:18 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 16:25:35 +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > >> 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.

> > >> 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 :)

> > > It's really not allowed, and dpkg-dev will just not honour it anyway,
> > > so the bug report seems confused. I've CCed Philipp, as maybe the
> > > report was about something else, and he wrote something different from
> > > what he meant?

> > Note that the .dsc file is part of the source package, so you probably
> > misinterpreted what he said?

I was going by what was written in #509702.

> > I don't know the context of your question
> > is, though it seems to me that you should specify in the control file in
> > the architecture fieled of the binary stanza(s) on which architectures
> > it should get built and not mention any architecture in a description
> > field.

Oh, yeah Peter's description of the bug report seems a bit confused
too. :)

> Yeah, what I really meant is basically having it in the .dsc and thus in the
> source stanza as found in Sources.  In this case this doesn't work because
> fenix-dev is arch:all.  If it wouldn't be then dpkg would propagate the
> binary architecture list into the .dsc and the buildds would skip it.

Ok, so this is related to the bug in dpkg-dev for which you provided a
patch some time ago (#526617), and it seems a simple sourceful upload
for fenix would fix the Architecture field in the .dsc file. I don't see
any problem in fenix-plugins though, so it should probably be reassigned
back?

debian-policy should probably be dropped further on.

regards,
guillem