On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Martti Kühne email@example.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:52:39PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
But that would simply add "arm" or "ppc" to the ARCH array. The point is to know beforehand if the package works - currently I can know if a package works or not in my arch (amd64) by looking at the PKGBUILD. That's the whole point of that array.
Ultimately it sounds like a good idea to set up a modified AUR for each of initially mirrors and modifies the arch of the current, later incoming packages to aur and then let them be adopted by the people who use the arches. Then, after the situation has fully surfaced, the "beforehand"-clause would be satisfied. Only few modificaitons are actually needed, like a field "untested" or something to indicate a package hasn't been acted upon or verified since the automatic conversion. If a user finds a verified, he might be able to unverify a package or be requested to use the comments section.
In a generalized approach this could solve even more of the current issues mentioned with aur, if it would incrementalize by version, per-arch-diffs and per-taco-diffs... making pkgbuilds patchwork. :)
Is there an official consensus about this question? I was asked to include 'arm' to the architecture array in fish-shell-git. I have no problems with that, but want to conform to the general recommendations.