[arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1
bpiotrowski at archlinux.org
Tue Dec 13 11:25:59 UTC 2016
On 2016-12-13 12:05, NicoHood wrote:
> I agree to get rid of i686. However I want to refer to the discussion
> about stronger hashes in PKGBUILDs. If we use an automatic build
> solution that builds the packages for 32bit, we need to make sure that
> we have gpg signed sources or strong hashes.
> GPG signatures would be best, but if they are not available we must rely
> on the hash. To ensure that the build server downloads the exact same
> source as the maintainer (who checked and tested the source) we must use
> strong hashes. (This already applies for the ALARM project).
Please cut it. The subject is pretty clear: getting rid (or not) of x86.
Keep this pointless discussion on hashes outside this thread. Thanks in
> Now that some packages still need some arch dependent modification I
> would still add those, if possible. It would mean our PKGBUILD is
> compatible with 32bit, but does not guarantee it. I personally would
> also love to do this for ARM, as it is just a really small change
> sometimes to add support for a specific arch.
It's not going to happen. I don't have 32bit, I don't run Arch on any
ARM board. I have no way to review if such compatibility change makes
any sense. If ever, we will just give people responsible for ARM port
access to SVN/Git, but just as with my previous comment, this seems
unrelated for now.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 525 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-dev-public