[arch-dev-public] Architecture Independent Packages

[Dan McGee]

On 9/25/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Jürgen Hötzel <juergen at hoetzel.info> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:14:11PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > This was brought up in a previous thread started by Damir, regarding
> > > committing a package to more than one repo at a time.
> > >
> > > I think it'd be more beneficial for us to split of architecture
> > > independent packages, just to eliminate redundancy. Python modules,
> > > scripts, etc they'd all fit here.
> > >
> > > Does anyone have an opinion on the matter? I think adding a
> > > arch=(none) or arch=(all) setup would be a good idea, BUT there might
> > > be a lot of other things that need to be changed.
> > >
> >
> > What about arch-dependent repositories:
> >
> > core-noarch
> > core-i686
> > core-x86_64
> >
> > extra-noarch
> > extra-i686
> > extra-x86_64
> >
> > This doesn't require architecture handling code in pacman. Just another
> > package repository move ;-))
>
> That's what I was thinking too, though I don't think we have anything
> that'd fit in core....
>
> BUT extra has a lot. The only "problem" is that we have this unwritten
> rule that dependencies don't cross repos - we'd be breaking this rule
> there.
>
> Now this is fine with me, but I know others like that rule.

This sidestepped the problem from earlier with pacman not liking it.
Each package name now has either/both a hardcoded arch in the package
name, or in the .PKGINFO file itself, I believe. Thus you won't be
able to install packages built this way on other architectures, even
if you rename it to make it happy. This will need some actual
machinery in pacman and makepkg to make it happen, I believe.

Wait, now that I'm thinking, it might exist in the PKGINFO but pacman
never explicitly checks it...

-Dan