On 01/06/12 02:31, Loui Chang wrote:
On Thu 31 May 2012 09:56 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote:
On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
When I first though about it, I wanted to say "why not", it doesn't hurt the functioning of the normal i686,x86_64 packages.
I thought the same, but after thinking more... While AUR is "unsupported", the project/site is still an official item.
In my mind, it doesn't make sense to include unofficial platforms in official infrastructure, supported or not.
We don't encourage documentation of other platforms in our wiki (do we?)
While I'd wish this weren't true, your argument does make perfect sense, so I guess it's best to keep AUR clear of these architectures.
I'm not a TU, but I actually think allowing other architectures in the PKGBUILDs is a Good Thing. The AUR is supposed be be a place of less-restricted user contribution - where packages (and/or architectures?) that developers are not interested in can be submitted.
Sure it's not a problem or against the rules. I'm just afraid that ARM users will use the AUR and then complain that stuff doesn't work. As I have seen with for example archbang and archlinuxarm questions on #archlinux.
It may be a bit of chicken-and-egg, though. The ppc/arm userbase might grow if arch is seen stable enough and seems to have sufficient packages, possibly making it worth being supported, but the lack of infrastructure won't make that so possible.
Yes, I also see it as a way of welcoming the ppc/arm/etc userbase into the main Arch collective, and adding their technological distinctiveness to our own.
-- Jelle van der Waa