The PPA hack is icky, but given I filed the relevant LP bug, I understand why it's there. Might do with a comment referencing the bug and encouraging removal.
My only other comment (not a blocker, cause I'm not convinced we'll ever have another partial arch, but it seems more in the spirit of the feature?) is that it should probably be named update-arch-whitelist and take a '-a' argument that fills in all the bits in the source that currently hardcode i386.
Approved with or without those changes, though I think I'd strongly prefer the latter happen (it can default to i386 for now, given that's our only partial arch, if that makes it more palatable to you).
The PPA hack is icky, but given I filed the relevant LP bug, I understand why it's there. Might do with a comment referencing the bug and encouraging removal.
My only other comment (not a blocker, cause I'm not convinced we'll ever have another partial arch, but it seems more in the spirit of the feature?) is that it should probably be named update- arch-whitelist and take a '-a' argument that fills in all the bits in the source that currently hardcode i386.
Approved with or without those changes, though I think I'd strongly prefer the latter happen (it can default to i386 for now, given that's our only partial arch, if that makes it more palatable to you).