On 2012-06-01 03:17, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 01/06/12 02:31, Loui Chang wrote:
On Thu 31 May 2012 09:56 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote:
On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
When I first though about it, I wanted to say "why not", it doesn't hurt the functioning of the normal i686,x86_64 packages.
I thought the same, but after thinking more... While AUR is "unsupported", the project/site is still an official item.
I agree, this is quite true, and I actually must agree that ppc/arm would be out-of-place because of this.
In my mind, it doesn't make sense to include unofficial platforms in official infrastructure, supported or not.
We don't encourage documentation of other platforms in our wiki (do we?)
I don't know if it's allowed, but I should point that this article exists in the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Install_Guide_on_a_PowerPC
I don't think it should say "official". Or it should at least mention it's unsupported by arch, BTW.
While I'd wish this weren't true, your argument does make perfect sense, so I guess it's best to keep AUR clear of these architectures.
I'm not a TU, but I actually think allowing other architectures in the PKGBUILDs is a Good Thing. The AUR is supposed be be a place of less-restricted user contribution - where packages (and/or architectures?) that developers are not interested in can be submitted.
Sure it's not a problem or against the rules. I'm just afraid that ARM users will use the AUR and then complain that stuff doesn't work.
I've seen people complaining that pacman can't install stuff from AUR too. We can't let out-of-place users become an impediment to move forward.
As I have seen with for example archbang and archlinuxarm questions on #archlinux.
I've seen Ubuntu and Fedora users asking stuff in #debian. Stupid people will always be stupid, you can't stop that!
The other reasons mentioned are valid (and I had actually backed down because of them), but I don't think this one should really have as much weight.
It may be a bit of chicken-and-egg, though. The ppc/arm userbase might grow if arch is seen stable enough and seems to have sufficient packages, possibly making it worth being supported, but the lack of infrastructure won't make that so possible.
Yes, I also see it as a way of welcoming the ppc/arm/etc userbase into the main Arch collective, and adding their technological distinctiveness to our own.
Given that this question ("is arm/ppc allowed in AUR?") has had a bit of mixed responses, can I expect a bit more of discussion on this, or should I consider the "no" final?