I think this is getting ridiculous. How did we get from XY was compiled
for one architecture by someone who made XY available in his own repo to
we should drop support for [random but common other architecture] for
all of devuan?

Devuan offers a sane alternative to debian without systemd, it is what
debian should have been. Since most packages come from debian anyway,
without any need to recompile them, there is no extra time or resources
needed to support those on other architectures which are already
supported by debian. And for the remaining packages which had to be
repackaged, I strongly assume that most of them had architecture any or
all specified in their debian control file, which means that the CI can
build all architectures at once anyway, which means that repackaging
them for multiple architectures doesn't constitute significantly more
work then packaging them for one architecture.

Considering all this, from my perspective, arguing that an architecture
is obsolete or not used anyways is pointless since it doesn't improve
anything, it doesn't free any time or resources, but it does harm any
user of the architecture to be dropped, and it would harm devuan as a
whole since it would result in inferior hardware support compared to debian.

That said, that someone who provides his own repos and therefore can't
use the devuan CI thing may not want or have the time to setup the
infrastructure to cross compile his packages for every architecture is
quiet understandable. When using someone elses repository, that not
every architecture may be provided has to be expected. I don't see any
problem here at all.

However, there is always room for improvement, and since it appears to
me that the problem isn't that the packages in question can't be
compiled for other architectures, I would leave the following suggestion
to the package maintainer and the devuan team for consideration: Just
put the packages in experimental. This way, the CI can just compile it
for all architectures, and everyone is happy again.

Daniel Abrecht

On 2017-07-21 21:01, Dragan FOSS wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 09:02 PM, golinux@??? wrote:
>> <AntoFox> Cinnamon 3.0.x (only amd64)
>
> I think it's best to drop 32-bit support at all... it's such a waste of
> time and resources.
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng