On 10/10/06, Dale Blount <dale@archlinux.org> wrote:
Say I have more than one architecture running Arch (I do). Say I have an nfs mounted home directory (I do). Say I have packages lying around in my homedir (I do). It'd be nice to know at a glance which box(es) the package could be installed on without stretching my already over-stuffed memory.
On 10/10/06, Christian Hamar <krics@gds.hu> wrote:
In my opinion if a user pulls a package from anywhere, from web or from ftp or just he is store packages in cd or dvd, etc, then he/she can see that what is this pack. I mean for which architecture. Just seeing the filename and you know that foo-1.0-1-x86_64 is for x86_64 archs, -i686 for i686 archs. So users not confused to see foo-1.0-1 and foo-1.0-1 and user just thinks, "what the hell, two same package? install that one then" And maybe he install an i686 package to x86_64 arch :)
So ok, I was going the wrong route when thinking about this. Nothing is really gained from pacman's perspective, and pacman doesn't require it in any way, it just alleviates confusion for users and packagers and any other thing that consumes the packages that is NOT written in a programming language (like me, though some may argue I AM, in fact,written in a programming language, called DNA, but I digress....) Coming at it from this angle, I think this may actually be a good idea across the board. Xentac, do you remember where the argument ended up when this was brought up before? Being that pacman3 will probably be side-by-side installed with pacman2 for a bit, while we iron things out, is there a way to smooth the transition? Perhaps a temporary "check for the arch version, if not found, try without the arch name" until we can move everything over... assuming, of course, that we do move to this scheme. PS I'm thinking of doing a side-by-side pacman3 RC in [unstable] sometime between wed and fri, for any archers interested....