On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 06:09:16 -0400 Campbell Jones <serebit@archlinux.org> said:
On July 2, 2025 3:25:22 PM EDT, Levente Polyak <anthraxx@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 7/2/25 6:29 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 12:20:49 +0200 Christian Hesse <list@eworm.de> said:
Carsten Haitzler <raster@rasterman.com> on Wed, 2025/07/02 11:00:
Next releases of anything I maintain shall be going arch=(any) as everything I maintain is fully portable anyway and always has been. My AUR pkgs already have a host of arch's in them and i'll simplify to any. No other changes needed.
That's probable a bad idea. :-o
That would set the arch "any" in the package metadata, which is not true if it contains architecture dependent data, like elf files.
yeah. i just found out - i never did that before. i was assuming it'd use $ARCH ... what's would be the way to go for "this will work on any arch - it's portable" without having to just list every arch i can think of?
-- main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH" "CX:;",b;for(a/* Best regards my address: */=0;b=c[a+ +];) putchar(b-1/(/* Chris cc -ox -xc - && ./x */b/42*2-3)*42);}
makepkg/pacman does not support a meta architecture like `all`. Packages will need to explicitly opt for all supported architectures we expect to ship in Arch Linux. Please keep the arch=() array limited to architectures we actually do handle officially, which currently is only x86_64 :)
Cheers, Levente
That may be something worth considering in the future. As much as I dislike Fedora's package format, their decision to make architectures opt-*out* instead of opt-in has apparently reduced the friction of adding new architectures quite a bit. We should consider adopting that approach.
Indeed. +1. I'd be all for an arch=(all) or arch=() which means all arch's implicitly... it will make it drastically easier for many packagers to adapt to a new multi-arch world ahead of time with no impact and less noise/maintenance. -- Carsten Haitzler <raster@archlinux.org> Carsten Haitzler <raster@rasterman.com>