On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Anders Bergh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
so how would you know in that case if someone uploads a new package only for one architecture but the package is buildable for both architectures?
Ronald
Don't know, but TUs uploading new packages should try to build them on 64-bit as well (if it is possible).
I believe (and hope) that TU who have access to a x86_64 machine already provide x86_64 versions of their packages. BTW, gcarrier has a build machine for x86_64. Ask him for access if you don't have a x86_64 machine.
Yes, definitely. I meant that all TUs should have access to a x86_64 machine, which means all new community packages will have arch=(i686 x86_64) if they can be built on both architectures. If a TU only sets arch=(i686) one should assume it doesn't work on x86_64.
Some of these packages will never build on 64-bit, or be usable on 32-bit. Perhaps something like arch=(i686 !x86_64) would be useful...
In this case, !x86_64 will be taken as an achitecture. A comment after the arch field would be more aproppriate, e.g.: arch=(i686) # Binary blob, doesn't work on x86_64
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Yes, it was a suggestion for how some packages (such as lib32-*) could be ignored on that page. -- Anders