2014-11-21 12:39 GMT-03:00 Jesse McClure <jmcclure@cns.umass.edu>:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Marcel Korpel wrote:
That said, I wonder why Arch Linux ARM, which *is* a different project, doesn't provide its own AUR? Wouldn't that be a solution for ARM-only packages?
This was my first thought. There isn't a reason for arm-only packages to be in the AUR. But preventing listing arm as an option along with i686 or x86_64 would seem just spiteful and silly. So I thought allowing any PKGBUILD that at least builds for either supported architecture would be fine, and additional architectures would be no issue at all. While any PKGBUILDs that are for arm only should be kept somewhere else.
But then this might be a hassle for arm users - now they need to check two different places for these PKGBUILDs.
I'm doubtful that the 'server burden' of keeping the rare arm-only PKGBUILD is noteworthy. The benefit to being good cooperative members of an open-source community by allowing these rare arm-only PKGBUILDs would be noteworthy.
I'd love to benefit from PKGBUILDs made by arm users when they could also build just fine on my x86_64. Why duplicate effort when a majority of packages that would work on one would work on the other.
-Jesse AKA 'Trilby' on archlinux.org
Spiteful or silly, aur packages has ben removed because they contain arm thing, so if you will do it, be carrefull that the: "Currently, it [the arch field] should contain i686 and/or x86_64" could be interpreted by other user and TUs as "only ARCH supported in AUR" and therefor submit a delete request. the only 100% safe aproach is that the Wiki or the Aur page state the official status about those architectures in AUR. -- *Pablo Lezaeta*