tiomap-dev team mailing list archive

[Adam Conrad <adconrad@xxxxxxx>]

The upgrade for launchpad's dpkg has been sitting around as RT#48330
since last october.  I'm sure we could escalate it.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of TI OMAP
Developers, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/917708

Title:
  Launchpad does not recognize Arch = any-arm

Status in Launchpad itself:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  hi,

  now that armel and armhf is supported, I tried to upload a package
  with Arch = any-arm, and my upload was rejected.  If i use Arch =
  armel armhf, it works as expected, but i got the feeling from the
  debian policy that any-arm should work.

  this was discussed on #ubuntu-dev:

  <ndec> hi. i have tried to use Arch = any-arm for some of our packages, and my upload are rejected in this case. If i use Arch = armel armhf, it works as expected, but i got the feeling from the debian policy that any-arm should work. Anyone can advise?
  <ndec> any-arm work when building locally with dpkg-buildpackage in armel or armhf root fs. it's just that the upload is rejected by LP
  <seb128> seems like soyuz doesn't handle that yet
  -*- ogra_ guesses soyuz just knows $(dpkg-architecture -L), any, all
  <cjwatson> It might be a bit naive about CPU aliases
  <cjwatson> It does know about any-i386, say, but -arm is a bit different
  <cjwatson> $ dpkg-architecture -aarmel -iany-arm; echo $?
  <cjwatson> 0
  <cjwatson> therefore IMO you should file a bug on Launchpad about this, yes
  <cjwatson> lib/lp/soyuz/pas.py:determineArchitecturesToBuild doesn't implement the full architecture alias handling

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/917708/+subscriptions