[arch-general] should imagemagick-doc really be i686/x86_64
Hi, I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick? Thank you for your kind attention. Yours,
On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like that. makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle them at all. -- Ionuț
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like that. makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle them at all.
-- Ionuț
I see. Thank you for the enlightening. And thank you all for all the quick replies. This is just amazing. ;-)
"Ionuț Bîru" <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like that. makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle them
at all.
-- Ionuț
Indeed, but can still create a separate 'any' package like we do with some games. Just a split package won't work there.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
"Ionuț Bîru" <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like that. makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle them
at all.
-- Ionuț
Indeed, but can still create a separate 'any' package like we do with some games. Just a split package won't work there.
FTR, there used to be a seperate 'any' imagemagick-doc packge but I just removed it because it was too much work and it was often forgotten when other devs were rebuilding or updating imagemagick. Plus, it's only 3MB.
"Eric Bélanger" <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
"Ionuț Bîru" <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home
of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or
is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like that. makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote: page this them
at all.
-- Ionuț
Indeed, but can still create a separate 'any' package like we do with some games. Just a split package won't work there.
FTR, there used to be a seperate 'any' imagemagick-doc packge but I just removed it because it was too much work and it was often forgotten when other devs were rebuilding or updating imagemagick. Plus, it's only 3MB.
I see. Making it split package and disregarding 'any' seems fairly reasonable considering the size. I have some 100MB doc packages though so I have some separate 'any' packages.
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick? Cannot be 'any' because it has been merged in imagemagick PKGBUILD and makepkg yet does not support different architectures for splitted packages. (Or maybe
On Thursday 27 January 2011 18:41:58 Auguste Pop wrote: the support is missing in db-scripts). -- Andrea
On 27/01/11 20:41, Auguste Pop wrote:
Hi,
I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home page of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents of the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't it be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or this is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
Thank you for your kind attention.
It is build as a split package with imagemagick. Currently our dbscripts do not handle split packages with arch=('i686' 'x86_64') and arch=('any') components. Allan
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Auguste Pop
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase