Guillem Jover wrote:

> * Fix typo to correctly set DEB_*_ARCH_BITS instead of DEB_*_ARCH in
> architecture.mk.

There's still a typo, alas. :/ Presumably architecture.mk should get
the treatment described at [1] to avoid problems like this in the
future.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/10/msg00035.html

diff --git i/scripts/mk/architecture.mk w/scripts/mk/architecture.mk
index 56eaabe5..84fe1d62 100644
--- i/scripts/mk/architecture.mk
+++ w/scripts/mk/architecture.mk
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ dpkg_late_eval ?= $(or $(value DPKG_CACHE_$(1)),$(eval DPKG_CACHE_$(1) := $(shel
DEB_HOST_ARCH ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH)
DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_OS)
DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU)
-DEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS)
+DEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_BITS)
DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_ARCH_ENDIAN)
DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_CPU)
DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM)
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH,dpkg-architecture
DEB_BUILD_ARCH ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH)
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS)
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU)
-DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS)
+DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_BITS)
DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH_ENDIAN)
DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_CPU)
DEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM ?= $(call dpkg_late_eval,DEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM,dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_SYSTEM)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111014060408.GC401@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net">htt p://lists.debian.org/20111014060408.GC401@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net

Hi,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > * Fix typo to correctly set DEB_*_ARCH_BITS instead of DEB_*_ARCH in
> > architecture.mk.
>
> There's still a typo, alas. :/ Presumably architecture.mk should get
> the treatment described at [1] to avoid problems like this in the
> future.
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/10/msg00035.html

I have not missed that patch and was planning to merge it on master after
this 1.16.1.1 release.

BTW, you seem to be good to catch this kind of mistakes. Are you
subscribed to the git commit notices?

If not, maybe you should... you could help us catch this kind of problem
earlier. Use either the PTS with "cvs" keyword or
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg-cvs/

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20111014062515.GI15556@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20111014062515.GI15556@rivendell.home.ouaza.com

Raphael Hertzog dixit:

>> There's still a typo, alas.

Ouch. Now I see it, too…

>> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/10/msg00035.html
>
>I have not missed that patch and was planning to merge it on master after
>this 1.16.1.1 release.

OK, thanks. I noticed buildflags.mk got similar treatment recently,
so maybe that’s the way to go indeed.

bye,
//mirabilos
--
“It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as
seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of
seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch.�
-- IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: Pine.BSM.4.64L.1110140830230.31689@herc.mirbsd.org ">http://lists.debian.org/Pine.BSM.4.64L.1110140830230.31689@herc.mirbsd.org