Lintian magic-arch-in-arch-list

Shaun Jackman · External Since: Nov 25, 2004 Posts: 81

I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
Architecture: amd64 i386 all
which lintan complains about:
E: eagle source: magic-arch-in-arch-list

I'm guessing that the architecture line should omit all:
Architecture: amd64 i386

What's gone wrong here?

I'm using
dpkg-dev 1.15.2
devscripts 2.10.50
debhelper 7.2.14
lintian 2.2.10

Please cc me in your reply. Thanks,
Shaun

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Mauro Lizaur · External Since: Feb 05, 2009 Posts: 3

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Shaun Jackman wrote:

> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E: eagle source: magic-arch-in-arch-list
>
> I'm guessing that the architecture line should omit all:
> Architecture: amd64 i386
>
> What's gone wrong here?
>
> I'm using
> lintian 2.2.10

This was a lintian issue [0] fixed in the version 2.2.11, so you shouldn't
pay much attention to *this* particular error.
When using lintian to check your packages use the sid's version, also I
recommend you to use pbuilder [1] next time, this way you can have a clean
environment to test/build your packages.

BTW, this kind of questions usually go in debian-mentors.DeleteThis@l.d.o

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/530565
[1] http://packages.debian.org/pbuilder
http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/software/pbuilder-doc/pbuilder-doc.html

Regards,
Mauro

--
JID: lavaramano.DeleteThis@jabber.org | http://lusers.com.ar/
2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F9C1

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Philipp Kern · External Since: Jun 22, 2009 Posts: 8

On 2009-06-22, Shaun Jackman <sjackman DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a source package with two binary packages. One binary package
> is arch i386 amd64, the other is arch all containing the
> architecture-independent data files. The resulting dsc file is
> Architecture: amd64 i386 all
> which lintan complains about:
> E: eagle source: magic-arch-in-arch-list
>
> I'm guessing that the architecture line should omit all:
> Architecture: amd64 i386

As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
"amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is
one i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong, IMHO.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 897

Philipp Kern <trash RemoveThis @philkern.de> writes:

> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
> i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong, IMHO.

Both Lintian and Policy, in fact. Policy will be fixed in the next
release.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Philipp Kern · External Since: Jun 22, 2009 Posts: 8

On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery <rra.DeleteThis@debian.org> wrote:
> Philipp Kern <trash.DeleteThis@philkern.de> writes:
>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that collapsed
>> "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is that we lost
>> information about what needs to be built where. "any" if there is one
>> i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong, IMHO.
> Both Lintian and Policy, in fact. Policy will be fixed in the next
> release.

I was pretty sure to have it looked up before submitting the patch, but
rereading it carefully I can see "can include the following sets of values".
So this means that each set is to be considered independent. Bummer.

Sorry,
Philipp Kern

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 897

Philipp Kern <trash DeleteThis @philkern.de> writes:
> On 2009-06-22, Russ Allbery <rra DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
>> Philipp Kern <trash DeleteThis @philkern.de> writes:

>>> As explained lintian was wrong after I dropped the bit that
>>> collapsed "amd64 i386 all" to "any" in dpkg-source. The problem is
>>> that we lost information about what needs to be built where. "any"
>>> if there is one i386 and one all binary package is just plain wrong,
>>> IMHO.

>> Both Lintian and Policy, in fact. Policy will be fixed in the next
>> release.

> I was pretty sure to have it looked up before submitting the patch,
> but rereading it carefully I can see "can include the following sets
> of values". So this means that each set is to be considered
> independent. Bummer.

Not a problem. The whole section was rather confusingly worded, so it
was a good opportunity for a rewrite.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org