Re: [aur-general] AUR Best Practice for New Package Upload
Also, it can be used for packages which uses python or similar; python has to be 32bit or 64bit, apps written in python has not. In general, packages with an interpreter or a VM needs no architecture specific package, as its dependency is the interpeter/VM, which is arch dependant.
Il 24/set/2014 06:50 Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> ha scritto:
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva wrote:
Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' folders.
People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository. A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
It would mean that there's not the potential for duplication between the various architectures' repos. I *am* assuming they'd use symlinks for the 'any' packages on the mirrors? On 24/09/2014, Giovanni Santini <giovannisantini93@yahoo.it> wrote:
Also, it can be used for packages which uses python or similar; python has to be 32bit or 64bit, apps written in python has not. In general, packages with an interpreter or a VM needs no architecture specific package, as its dependency is the interpeter/VM, which is arch dependant.
Il 24/set/2014 06:50 Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf@rocketmail.com> ha scritto:
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva wrote:
Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in
repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' folders.
People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't
an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository.
A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
-- David Phillips GPG Key 0x7BF3D17D0884BF5B Fingerprint 2426 235A 7831 AA2F 56AF 4BC0 7BF3 D17D 0884 BF5B
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 19:22 +1200, David Phillips wrote:
A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
It would mean that there's not the potential for duplication between the various architectures' repos.
David, OTOH this would mean that we would go one step away from the KISS principle. If somebody has got a 32-bit install, the 32-bit architecture repositories should be what is needed. If somebody has got a 64-bit install, the 64-bit architecture repositories should be what is needed (and perhaps multilib too). Just an additional "any" repository alone wouldn't kill the KISS principle, but it easily could become an endless chain of pseudo-efficiency. Why not separating headers and libs from the bin packages, as e.g. Debian does? This is just a rhetorical question ;). Regards, Ralf
PS: The repository "issue" isn't relevant for AUR and ABS and private build packages ;). If I build an empty dummy package or a package providing a shell script or ... I want the suffix "any". I don't want to build two packages, assumed I should have got installs with different architectures. How it's handled to provide "any", aka "no architecture" packages by the official repositories is something unrelated to AUR, ABS and what we build on our own. Assumed it should be worth a discussion (I don't think so), the better place to discuss this is Arch general.
On Wednesday 24 September 2014 at 19:22:50, David Phillips wrote:
A repository for "any" doesn't make sense.
It would mean that there's not the potential for duplication between the various architectures' repos. I *am* assuming they'd use symlinks for the 'any' packages on the mirrors?
At least on mirror.yandex.ru this is true and even more so. They have a common "pool" directory with all packages from all repositories and then the $repo/os/$arch/* files are just symlinks to respective files in the pool. -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
participants (4)
-
David Phillips
-
Giovanni Santini
-
Ivan Shapovalov
-
Ralf Mardorf