On 2016-12-13 12:05, NicoHood wrote:
I agree to get rid of i686. However I want to refer to the discussion about stronger hashes in PKGBUILDs. If we use an automatic build solution that builds the packages for 32bit, we need to make sure that we have gpg signed sources or strong hashes.
GPG signatures would be best, but if they are not available we must rely on the hash. To ensure that the build server downloads the exact same source as the maintainer (who checked and tested the source) we must use strong hashes. (This already applies for the ALARM project).
Please cut it. The subject is pretty clear: getting rid (or not) of x86. Keep this pointless discussion on hashes outside this thread. Thanks in advance.
Now that some packages still need some arch dependent modification I would still add those, if possible. It would mean our PKGBUILD is compatible with 32bit, but does not guarantee it. I personally would also love to do this for ARM, as it is just a really small change sometimes to add support for a specific arch.
It's not going to happen. I don't have 32bit, I don't run Arch on any ARM board. I have no way to review if such compatibility change makes any sense. If ever, we will just give people responsible for ARM port access to SVN/Git, but just as with my previous comment, this seems unrelated for now. Bartłomiej