Hi! Can non-pacman-dev-man enter this discusstion? VMiksos said:
okay, but then we should hardcore the list of possible arches. or how could we determine of the last item is an arch or a pkgrel?
I don't see a problem here. There're not much archs to deal with, curently only i686 and x86_64. Other distros may implement ppc and maybe some more, but anyway it's not too much to hardcode them. 2006/10/8, Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org>:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:14:32 +0200 VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:
2) all the other package managers (rpm/deb/slack) includes the architecture in the filename
I've been arguing for the architecture in the filename for a long time... some arch devs are really against the idea and I have no idea why... Usually the best argument they have is that it breaks backwards compatibility and packages in repos should be stored in their architecture's directories. Both of which, I don't buy.
I once had an idea to not depend on the filename at all. Instead to get the package's info from the .PKGINFO. Then the filename becomes irrelevant...
What -i686/-x86_64 will give to ordinary user? Just more chars in every pacman output! If user choose the x86_64 repo then almost all packages will be x86_64 anyway ( some can be for i686 only if there are no correspondent x86_64 versions). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)