Bug#1128325: dpkg-scanpackages --arch=amd64 should ignore "arch-all" packages

On 19/02/26 13:26, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-02-19 at 10:12:56 +0100, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
>> On 19/02/26 03:47, Guillem Jover wrote:
>>>> Could `--arch=foo` be modified to mean "strictly foo, without all"?
>>>> Alternatively could a new option like `--arch-strict=foo` be
>>>> introduced, if you believe that the old behavior should not change?
>>>
>>> I don't think changing the semantics for --arch would be correct, as
>>> this is how it has been documented, and how people have relied on this
>>> option working. Instead I've added a new --no-implicit-arch option,
>>> which removes the implicit addition of the arch-all packages, so then
>>> you can run twice with --arch=foo and then --arch=all for example.
> 
>> If I am allowed to bikeshed a bit, as a user I'd find
>>
>>      --no-implicit-arch-all
>>
>> or
>>
>>      --no-implicit-archs
>>
>> more explicit and easier to spot when looking for that kind of
>> change of semantics. (Inner dialogue: "no implicit arch? which arch
>> is implicit?".)
> 
> I actually started with --no-arch-all, but then when I was testing
> that, it started to look very odd or even confusing, for example with:
> 
>    $ dpkg-scanpackages --no-arch-all --arch=all .

Yeah, that is slightly confusing.

> And while --no-implicit-arch-all, at least makes clear it's about the
> arch being implicit, it also seemed very long (so less ergonomic).

Better long than confusing, right? :)

> I'm
> not sure I see a difference with using the plural archs though. :)

For me `--no-implict-arch` raises the question "which arch is implicit? 
arch-all, the one I'm running this command from? what about a 
cross-compiled dpkg?", while `--no-implicit-archs` is simply "no archs 
will be implicitly added", something that does not require additional 
thought.

A final suggestion. Maybe using a positive statement helps? 
"--only-requested-arch" or "--only-arch"?

Regards,