As an ordinary user I must say that $ARCH suffix in package names is _not_ needed IMHO. Why? Some of you say it will be usefull for people who download packages for more then one arch and add them with pacman -A. But is that _hard_ to keep them in different directories? Why then we don't end with something like modules-something-beyond-utils-0.15-7-i686-2.6.18-testing.pkg.tar.gz for better seeing "at a glance" all info??? If going with that logic - at least having -testing/{-curent/extra/}unstable is good for such people who needs -i688/-x86_64, why don't add this too? >;-) Seriously, _most_ people don't use multiple archs at once nor install much packages with pacman -A nor keep a mirror of different archs in one huge directory. Having some prefix is useful for them. They _already_know_ for what arch are packages they are installing. IMHO adding $ARCH suffix will only complicate things. And will confuse many users during transition period (which will last untill all packages will got $ARCH suffix appended during version updates). So, I don't see anything positive for _most_ users here. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)