[arch-general] Architecture neutral packages
Howdy folks, I'm not sure if this has been covered before but has anyone any thoughts about an architecture idependent package class for packages that are not specifically i686 or x86_64 ? For instance, I recently built a custom package for the fluidr3 soundfont that ended up being 80Mb or so and when it came time to build packages for both i686 and x86_64 I ended up with two copies of the binary package in both categories. This is quite redundant and the same principle *probably* applies to *some* other packages as well. One other example package that comes to mind is aurscripts from AUR which contains a bash script which is quite independent of architecture. My concern is that I would like to go down the path of releasing tutorials that will include podcasts and screencasts that could end being quite large and, as things currently stand, if I build them for both architectures I will end up with 2 copies. Any thoughts or workarounds on this issue ? --markc
Le Sunday 02 December 2007 10:40:52 Mark Constable, vous avez écrit :
Howdy folks, I'm not sure if this has been covered before but has anyone any thoughts about an architecture idependent package class for packages that are not specifically i686 or x86_64 ?
Already discussed (for example there : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-September/001829.html ) -- slubman site: http://www.slubman.info/
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:50:53AM +0100, slubman wrote:
Le Sunday 02 December 2007 10:40:52 Mark Constable, vous avez écrit :
Howdy folks, I'm not sure if this has been covered before but has anyone any thoughts about an architecture idependent package class for packages that are not specifically i686 or x86_64 ?
Already discussed (for example there : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-September/001829.html )
And it's still under discussion. I think the last mail is the following one : http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/003440.html which hasn't been answered yet. In any cases, it looks like things are moving forward.
participants (3)
-
Mark Constable
-
slubman
-
Xavier