"Ionuț Bîru" 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.

"Eric Bélanger" wrote:

...

"Ionuț Bîru" 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 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.