Bug#800546: guymager: please add arm64

[Michael Prokop]

Hej,

* Edmund Grimley Evans [Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 10:24:54AM +0100]:
> > Why I don't use "Architecture: any" in guymager is that its
> > Build-Dependency libguytools2 is known to support only those
> > architectures:

> >   Architecture: i386 amd64 powerpc armhf arm64

> > If I'm using "Architecture: any" in guymager and it fails to build
> > on those unsupported architectures then it needs extra steps to
> > avoid RC bugs/autoremovals, nor?

> I think it would be all right. Firstly, there is a difference between
> "fails to build" and "BD-Uninstallable" (build dependencies were not
> satisfied). Secondly, it is only a bug or an obstacle to migration, as
> I understand it, when a package which was previously built
> successfully later fails to build. If you look at
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=arm64&suite=sid
> you'll see that there are currently 90 BD-Uninstallable and 129
> Build-Attempted packages on that architecture. Click on the package
> "love", then on "Tracker", and you'll see that "love", which is
> "Architecture: any" but can't be built on arm64 because we don't yet
> have luajit, has still successfully migrated to stable and testing on
> the architectures where it can be built. So I think you can make your
> package "Architecture: any" without suffering any inconvenience, and
> it might be more convenient in the long run to do that. However, I am
> not a DD and have never myself maintained a Debian package so I could
> be wrong.

Fair enough, I'll give it a try, let's see what we get. :)
Thanks for your feedback.

regards,
-mika-
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/forensics-devel/attachments/20170817/640fa681/attachment.sig>