[arch-multilib] Multilib access?

Peter Lewis plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Fri Feb 11 10:51:07 EST 2011

On Friday 11 February 2011 15:39:58 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 11.02.2011 16:26, schrieb Peter Lewis:
> > On Friday 11 February 2011 15:16:25 Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >> Our multilib policy is to only add stuff that we actually need. So, what
> >> do we need lib32-libmikmod for?
> > 
> > Oh right, I didn't know that, sorry. I had assumed it was just like with
> > [community], popular packages etc. and it has 102 votes.
> No, I'd like to keep multilib as small as possible.

Sounds sensible.

> > It's required by some
> > SDL stuff, but that's also in AUR.
> > 
> > So, it's no problem, I just wanted to keep the masses happy, but I'm
> > equally as happy to keep it in the AUR given the policy.
> Don't be too quick here - "SDL stuff" may (or may not) be useful for
> closed-source 32-bit-only games. This means we might still do it, can
> you give me more details what we need it for? We do have lib32-sdl in
> multilib, and most games seem okay with that.

Okay. More specifically, according to the AUR deps, lib32-libmikmod is 
required for:

In the AUR, low votes.
Doesn't appear to have anything requiring it.

In the AUR, 93 votes.
Required by two games: bin32-srb2 and tecnoballz - both have low votes.

In the AUR, low votes - actually source is also available for this, so I don't 
know why it requires multilib at all... will investigate.

It seems odd to me that the lib32-sdl_mixer and lib32-libmikmod have so many 
votes, when they aren't required by anything particularly popular. Perhaps 32-
bit only games without PKGBUILDS require them to be installed on the system?

What do you think?


More information about the arch-multilib mailing list