Re: building fewer packages or reduced functionality on i386

Hi,

On 8/15/26 20:55, Simon McVittie wrote:

> Adrian Bunk's comments elsewhere in this thread, that having the same 
> package build differently on different architectures can end up being 
> more work than having it build the same way everywhere,

It also doesn't help -- anything that can be rebuilt can also be rebuilt 
for amd64, more easily.

> Perhaps it's a more efficient use of 
> project members' limited time to keep building everything for every 
> architecture unless/until a problem is seen, but be then be more willing 
> to solve that problem via architecture-specific removals that we 
> historically have been (similar to the removal of mozjs, gjs and GNOME 
> Shell from armel in the past).

Yes, but we'd also need more scalable infrastructure for that -- and 
that is where a dedicated exclusion mechanism can provide a benefit over 
just creating unfulfillable build dependencies.

    Simon

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

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEtjuqOJSXmNjSiX3Tfr04e7CZCBEFAmqAXTAACgkQfr04e7CZ
CBHdLgf/a2tOgfzkfC9KH8ljQmBDPiT9up0ZJ/inUD8YVGhG7AEj4wKmaZDibttS
Q5G3gIyZF70KUKhl6Q2cEiFf8adwZqpJlra0na0UkEljyDoAljLFUeaYs+7GN9V/
qr/oYbX6dabn8szoNsXrJhqCa+9bkQF0b3R4jbFu6tmwH09a8TiiXGVN0sUHdyRh
w6i3pHWsyWU+S5DCMqkVAr111FMzrEkC1+AnWeV4Vfm/SnlHz6JrJw93+F88HEIJ
+jZbWhLtzB3j9ShZU1sFmttsciK0VTlKn/JEf5g8KXSfOcPLo+ddaH5la8y6Nxlm
QKo+IT0PWwaqAOno8OFMiK1v71oNyg==
=MJ5y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----