Re: [arch-dev-public] -ARCH package extension

On 5/11/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:28:18PM -0400, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 5/11/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/11/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 5/11/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/11/07, Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

--- usr/bin/extrapkg 2006-04-28 04:54:19.000000000 +0200 +++ /usr/bin/extrapkg 2007-05-08 23:08:57.000000000 +0200 @@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ fi

source PKGBUILD +pkg3file=${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}-i686.pkg.tar.gz pkgfile=${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}.pkg.tar.gz +[ -f $pkg3file ] && mv $pkg3file $pkgfile

if [ ! -f $pkgfile ]; then pkgfile=$PKGDEST/$pkgfile

Works better IMO and doesn't add an extra step to package management. Maybe we should add a similar workaround in devtools for now, as all devs and TUs use it.

I was thinking about that too - it'd make a decent intermediate step.

Jason? What do you think, devtools is your baby

We can rebuild a patched devtools for now in the repos regardless. Have it look for either package name and rename it to the old style name? Any takers? I like the patch above.

Looks good, though we probably want some form of 'CARCH' in there.

Set a global "CARCH='i686'" and sed it out for x86_64 ?

devtools are updated with a patch now. It should be able to find packages with either name, and will rename them for now to the pacman2-compatible name.

-Dan

I don't know if I want to release a version of devtools for this. It's a feature that will just have to be taken out when we want to move over to the -ARCH suffix for really.

Thoughts?

Well, it's not really a huge deal to push a new version is it? What are the downsides? In addition, the repos may have to remain in this state for a little bit, so we can get to the point where everyone has updated, and we have a new ISO - that could take a month of more. And a month of manually moving packages is gonna get tedious. I just figure, it's not a huge deal to push a new version, and it can't really cause any harm.