Am Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:07:21 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
2007/9/27, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Note that we don't need any noarch repo or something like this! We should just do this: 1) modify {core,extra,community}pkg to tag CVS files for noarch packages as CURRENT and CURRENT64 at the same time 2) add noarch packages to i686 and x86_64 .db.tar.gz files at the same time (modify all needed scripts) 3) modify makepkg to understand arch=('any') (or 'all', feel free to name it) and make -any.pkg.tar.gz files 4) modify our web backend (we need to do this anyway because of x86_64 support) No changes to pacman needed.
This is a good point, I didn't think about it. Pacman 3.0 lists actual filenames in the DBs (so a package could actually be named "lol.wtf" if you wanted it to). If we simply add special handling in the scripts (makepkg, db scripts, etc) for -any/-all packages, we can solve this with little changes.
Dan and I will look into this - could someone add a ticket to flyspray as a reminder - assign it to Dan and myself.
Please make sure you don't force us to use the devtools! It should be possible to do the build process without any tools. I always had the problem that devtools didn't support pkgdest from makepkg.conf and i couldn't set any bandwidth limit. So i cannot use them. I prefer to do everything at commandline myself and want to use any tool (e.g. for ftp uplaod) i want. And please keep in mind that simplicity/KISS is one our (still not defined) goals. That also came up when we were discussing about splitted packages and unreadable pkgbuilds. I don't think it's important to have noarch implemented right now as one the first new features. A buildserver and beeing more multiarch capable (cvs move, website/feeds, maintainership) seems more important to me. But I'm not against it at all if you can implement it easy. Andy