XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

control: tag -1 +patch

Hello,

I am seeking seconds for the following patch.

Comments:

- I've made the two architecture requirement a 'should', because I agree
that we might otherwise end up with "amd64" being the only value
anyone uses for this field. But perhaps it should be a 'recommends'

- I've included the ability to specify the architectures on which the
package is known /not/ to build. This seems useful because in many
cases the architectures that don't work is precisely what the
maintainer knows, and wants to document in machine-readable form. I
don't buy the argument that it creates any additional uncertainty

- Let's stick with th ename Build-Indep-Architecture since it's already
in use in the archive.

diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 0ee6684..c54a341 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ package) are:

- :ref:`Build-Depends et al <s-sourcebinarydeps>`

+- :ref:`Build-Indep-Architecture <s-f-Build-Indep-Architecture>`
+
- :ref:`Standards-Version <s-f-Standards-Version>` (recommended)

- :ref:`Homepage <s-f-Homepage>`
@@ -1016,6 +1018,29 @@ This field is automatically added to Debian source control files
field may also be used in source package control files
(``debian/control``) if needed in other situations.

+.. _s-f-Build-Indep-Architecture:
+
+``Build-Indep-Architecture``
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Specification of architectures on which the architecture-independent
+binary packages are known to be buildable and/or not buildable. If
+this field is not specified, it defaults to ``any``, matching all
+Debian machine architectures. If specified, it should be either
+
+- A unique single word identifying a Debian machine architecture as
+ described in :ref:`s-

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:15:10AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

I am seeking seconds for the following patch.

Thank you for working on this!

- I've included the ability to specify the architectures on which the
package is known /not/ to build. This seems useful because in many
cases the architectures that don't work is precisely what the
maintainer knows, and wants to document in machine-readable form. I
don't buy the argument that it creates any additional uncertainty

Whilst you did this, I think the proper syntax is not clear by your
wording. For example, I take that
Build-Indep-Architecture: !amd64
means "this thing builds everywhere except amd64". But then, how can I
specify "it builds on all 32-bit architectures except i386", for
example?
See the following inline comments:

+Debian machine architectures. If specified, it should be either
+
+- A unique single word identifying a Debian machine architecture as

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+ described in :ref:`s-arch-spec`.
+
+- An architecture wildcard identifying a set of Debian machine
+ architectures, see :ref:`s-arch-wildcard-spec`.

This also implies a single word.

But…

+maintainer's control. The specification should entail that the +architecture-independent packages are buildable on at least two +architectures.

this is not compatible with the above: both cases say that you have to
provide at most one word, but how can you provide at least two
architectures if you have only one word and can't use a wildcard?
And if you can provide multiple words, you need to specify a separator (whitespace vs comma, I suppose).

Also, I dislike the sentence in itself, I believe it should be more straightforward in conveying its meaning of "pretty please at least two
arch".

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAlniYgkACgkQCBa54Yx2 K61Z/A/8CKbd41ZMai2U3L8J1EoUaA2QB94g6XwpGCwaM8dIxW0dSgy/1RKFNxG4 3wZINza+/U8n8hD69KwSLkPOuvawiNTfVzUtkBYLJmYUKv3XlNgUZCqccD10RCPj C0GfH8aUW0qa6wneRmhWa8NPZUEUX0manyqWJPyhn4k4Mw3z0886qYv3ZqdSEINt iU3mleqTVWmZR8xxsCtyd2M8hAM8oncbL7F8UPJ7CZXn1rSqIzPLVF8qGLUITj01 3lWvyKyYR2eJJn1xqRgj6mJg/2PK6nucLHY5rvzqSKsN46zYF/aqDhPTvJ5TU0OH 81YuxnHVaBfszsMQZckRWyjb+Ltwq4v85TGE36iMS3ML+4R1gJzG2obX0Jl+UVj0 A0IQITq6v9Dr7NaNnyEcYwgUC3+GgGTgzXn1Cn0hgSN5qppEpy6DCKf/VCyf8ibw C0I6kTXYR1ZmPI6r3LG9XqBpAPYgr8SgLa8R2WzH4rrkL5vFxHR0u3AfxOnjpVu6 WAKf/4qA8JGaSAfWMdAHd2kLidU1LunnDMxCoICAxzAvXBXYy8w

XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

Hello,

On Sat, Oct 14 2017, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:15:10AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

I am seeking seconds for the following patch.

Thank you for working on this!

Thank you for the review, though I don't believe I need to update my
patch in light of your comments. See responses below.

- I've included the ability to specify the architectures on which the
package is known /not/ to build. This seems useful because in many
cases the architectures that don't work is precisely what the
maintainer knows, and wants to document in machine-readable form. I
don't buy the argument that it creates any additional uncertainty

Whilst you did this, I think the proper syntax is not clear by your
wording. For example, I take that
Build-Indep-Architecture: !amd64 means "this thing builds
everywhere except amd64". But then, how can I specify "it builds on
all 32-bit architectures except i386", for example?

I copied the wording from the Architecture: field. Just as it is not
possible to say that an architecture-dependent package is buildable on
all 32-bit archs except i386 without listing all those archs, it is not possible to specify that architecture-independent packages are buildable
on all 32-bit archs except i386 without listing all those archs.

We want Architecture: and Build-Indep-Architecture: to use the same
format. I don't think we should try to extend our format at this point
because there are already various parsers of Architecture:.

See the following inline comments:

+Debian machine architectures. If specified, it should be either
+ +- A unique single word identifying a Debian machine architecture
as

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+ described in :ref:`s-arch-spec`.
+ +- An architecture wildcard identifying a set of Debian machine
+ architectures, see :ref:`s-arch-wildcard-spec`.

This also implies a single word.

But…

+maintainer's control. The specification should entail that the
+architecture-independent packages are buildable on at least two
+architectures.

this is not compatible with the above: both cases say that you have to provide at most one word, but how can you provide at least two
architectures if you have only one word and can't use a wildcard?

It says that you /should/ provide at least two architectures. This is
not a /must/ requirement, so it should still be possible to use a unique
single word.

And if you can provide multiple words, you need to specify a separator (whitespace vs comma, I suppose).

This is detailed in the architecture wildcard spec.

Also, I dislike the sentence in itself, I believe it should be more straightforward in conveying its meaning of "pretty please at least
two arch".

It has to be that way for cases like this:

Build-Indep-architecture: !amd64

That entails that it builds on at least two architectures, but on a
common reading of 'specify', it does not specify two archs.

--
Sean Whitton

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEm5FwB64DDjbk/CSLaVt65L8GYkAFAlniaBwACgkQaVt65L8G YkDedRAApCwzTYBfSteJIj6zqTjU3fqIx5yKIglLiKPyLr8gDYqmMULrfkHXJryG pU+QIADMR8UPAB4tFpEl0StWuqRWC5gnGJ75FBnnuaQYv+x5Zwg8fl5CCAWkOZcW COGjL7qEWidfA+tKsp4JrKONsf85s5nTWfQGFdV2rK0f1xbI8YserdN43nxV8kO+ kfKmso9TRQRjLImxbtGHFxznyWL6YFMR0NiRZRqciBNKzDE7XGWTsx9dAeRwKSNS GlH6d8OTIItsQmBcDrQAUkaiW5Lh4w8coXuSvoERTaf1VWwvC5xubjYb1GkQMjdl hBcjN2Mc/0rN87vj2UzOGR/WXlRfZBBkX4Kqkszu91PnaEfeRzRTwgn2B+JNBEEk dnj5lyuDsfwpvdrk8rd3xGtHLjsaGyrChZUSWn2G2ZAsXrzwo9DhOpo5Q/0zdF2g iOPLv798mpg2fp64/c5aE+feTpyNkcU8hzewPTVXEDX3uhgeP2s42limo3nQNfDg m0H9e/mF2ljQlRtqRYVP8peScFCJI7wgYQmuhqLWLcoBDeplTTkR3uBbRy5Lt81m c6bNc7HtCmYle2akzDSShGvQyB3uWSWzq9605sAbbmdFeUMFznILxRBRnOxQyzKQ XPUXqn5tKH2NdLNQqq2EB6mc8N6urTHr2WuwdRc5229h9lThIfk=q0NB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)