On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ronald van Haren 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). 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... -- Anders

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Eric Belanger wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Anders Bergh wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ronald van Haren 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

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

So... apart from suggestions about how the package difference page [1] could be improved, did anyone actually do some building for community64? The number of differences between the two arches is about as bad as I have ever seen it.

In particular, there seems to be a number of new packages added that are only present in i686 at the moment. If these are truly i686 only, please add them to the community 64 status wiki page [2] with a reason.

Thanks, Allan

[1] http://www.archlinux.de/?page=ArchitectureDifferences [2] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community64_Status

I'll try to make a bit of time on monday, but first I have a deadline to make and some other stuff. I'll try to first to the i686 only packages and packages with bug reports open. Any help is of course welcome. Ronald

I only looked at two packages so far: * flobopuyo doesn't build on x86_64 fixed, added a couple of patches. I'll remove it from the list soon. * warzone2100 doesn't work on x86_64 version 2.1_beta4 builds, though I'm not quite happy with the stability of it. In 15 minutes playing it crashed on me once and locked another time. Maybe somebody else can give it a try (you need to install quesogl from unsupported as a builddep first) to see if it is just my hardware as at least both gentoo and fedora have it at least somewhere in their repos. Thanks On a general note, please don't add packages to the 'doesn't work on 64bit list' if it are just compile issues. Normally patches for it are just a few clicks away. Ronald