On 2010/12/6 Rémy Oudompheng wrote:

This seems to assume that pacman and makepkg run on systems that are either 32-bit or 64-bit. IMO, your proposal looks very "ad hoc", and would add unnecessary complications to makepkg, with no benefit when dealing with PowerPC, ARM, and other architectures.

However, maybe a sensible way to do that would be to allow build() function to be replaced by "build_$arch" functions in the same fashion as with split packages. -- Rémy.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:48:52 +0100, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:

On 2010/12/6 Rémy Oudompheng wrote:

...

This seems to assume that pacman and makepkg run on systems that are either 32-bit or 64-bit. IMO, your proposal looks very "ad hoc", and would add unnecessary complications to makepkg, with no benefit when dealing with PowerPC, ARM, and other architectures.

However, maybe a sensible way to do that would be to allow build() function to be replaced by "build_$arch" functions in the same fashion as with split packages.

In most cases, the build() function is same on every architecture, just configure,make,make install so I don't see no advantage in having build_$arch() and package_$arch() and package_$arch_splitpkgname()...this would just make the PKGBUILD huge and full of duplicate code. On the other hand, the original idea seems good to me, I'd just implement it similar way you suggested, i.e. depends_$arch=(), optdepends_$arch=() etc. You also still need to have a fallback array, like depends=() for all architectures and depends_x86_64=() specially when there will be some difference in dependencies on i686 and x86_64 etc. Dan -- -- Dan Vrátil vratil@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: progdan@jabber.cz Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.