Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Markus Koschany]

Am 05.10.2015 um 12:48 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Le 05/10/2015 12:18, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> 
>> I think we should determine if upstream supports ppc64el. If not, it is
>> reasonable to remove ppc64el and other affected ports from the
>> Architecture field.
> 
> I don't know, for some packages we do not exclude the unsupported
> architectures explicitly so the builders can attempt the build and
> identify the portability issue. For example with openjfx, I initially
> restricted the build to i386/amd64 but I was later asked to remove the
> limitation (#765397).


I think it's ok to initially build with arch:any as long as there is
sufficient support from upstream. However if it turns out that some
arch-dependent packages are unusable and upstream does not intend to fix
this, we should not claim that we can. I think restricting the build to
supported architectures is sensible then.

Like I said I don't know if those architectures are supported now. Back
in April Tony wrote that upstream has started to work on architecture
support.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482#21

Perhaps something has changed in the latest version?

Markus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20151005/51d82887/attachment.sig>