On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:25:59 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200):
when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler".
The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.
When I searched for the packages they were in AUR 4, but the search engine didn't find them, that#s why I provided the links: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/ ^^^^ AUR4
Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit architecture only?
We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit architecture.
You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do you mean by split packages?
Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit architecture too? Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit support?