[arch-general] should imagemagick-doc really be i686/x86_64

Sven-Hendrik Haase sh at lutzhaase.com
Thu Jan 27 11:02:51 EST 2011

"Eric Bélanger" <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh at lutzhaase.com>
>> "Ionuț Bîru" <ibiru at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home
>>>> of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents
>>>> the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't
>>>> be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or
>>>> is just my ignorance of imagemagick?
>>>> Thank you for your kind attention.
>>>> Yours,
>>>is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like
>>>makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle
>>>at all.
>> Indeed, but can still create a separate 'any' package like we do with
>some games. Just a split package won't work there.
>FTR, there used to be a seperate 'any' imagemagick-doc packge but I
>just removed it because it was too much work and it was often
>forgotten when other devs were rebuilding or updating imagemagick.
>Plus, it's only 3MB.

I see. Making it split package and disregarding 'any' seems fairly reasonable considering the size.

I have some 100MB doc packages though so I have some separate 'any' packages.

More information about the arch-general mailing list