On 3/2/21 9:12 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 3/3/21 11:56 am, Filipe Laíns wrote:
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 11:10 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 3/3/21 11:03 am, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
I wonder, might this be an interesting time to reintroduce multiple architectures?
We used to offer i686 and x86_64.
Maybe now we could offer x86_64, x86_64-v2, and x86_64-v3. Or go right to -v4.
That is a possibility that has been discussed over the years. It was previously decided that we needed other architecture builds to be automated, and thus automated package signing. This becomes a possibility once we manage to sign databases (which will hit a decade of pacman support in October!).
Allan
Is it possible to get pacman to allow us to enable multiple architectures at once and prioritize one of them? This way we could just do x86_64 and the maintainer could opt-in into x86_64-* if it makes sense for the package.
This would not introduce new effort to maintainers and would solve the issue quite nicely IMO.
No it is not possible in pacman (without abusing fall through when failing to download a package from a server).
Right, we could have some packages built for arch=(x86_64) but with optimizations and package them in a [community-optimized] repo or something. This seems complicated and doesn't handle conflicting filenames -- which is a serious problem for the server pool and archive. Usually clashes would be eliminated by keying off of the architecture; only one of each package per arch. This would not permit fallthrough though. pacman could, theoretically, learn to support multiple "Architecture"s in pacman.conf, e.g. configure it to support Architecture = x86_64-v2 x86_64 and accept both types of packages. This would be needed in order to support selectively optimizing packages while keeping the same pkgname. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User