On 9/25/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/25/07, Jürgen Hötzel <juergen@hoetzel.info> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:14:11PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
This was brought up in a previous thread started by Damir, regarding committing a package to more than one repo at a time.
I think it'd be more beneficial for us to split of architecture independent packages, just to eliminate redundancy. Python modules, scripts, etc they'd all fit here.
Does anyone have an opinion on the matter? I think adding a arch=(none) or arch=(all) setup would be a good idea, BUT there might be a lot of other things that need to be changed.
What about arch-dependent repositories:
core-noarch core-i686 core-x86_64
extra-noarch extra-i686 extra-x86_64
This doesn't require architecture handling code in pacman. Just another package repository move ;-))
That's what I was thinking too, though I don't think we have anything that'd fit in core....
BUT extra has a lot. The only "problem" is that we have this unwritten rule that dependencies don't cross repos - we'd be breaking this rule there.
Now this is fine with me, but I know others like that rule.
This sidestepped the problem from earlier with pacman not liking it. Each package name now has either/both a hardcoded arch in the package name, or in the .PKGINFO file itself, I believe. Thus you won't be able to install packages built this way on other architectures, even if you rename it to make it happy. This will need some actual machinery in pacman and makepkg to make it happen, I believe. Wait, now that I'm thinking, it might exist in the PKGINFO but pacman never explicitly checks it... -Dan