[aur-general] Google-earth and bin32-google-earth

Thorsten Töpper atsutane at freethoughts.de
Sun Mar 27 08:50:10 EDT 2011

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:07:18 +0200
Det <nimetonmaili at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
> There's been some discussion between me and the maintainer/submitter
> of 'bin32-google-earth' (srabd) as to whether 'google-earth' should
> finally replace 'bin32-google-earth'.
> He disagrees. In his oppinion the "bin32-" prefix should always be
> used when the package being offered is a "32-bit only" one. I in turn
> think that the package should be removed in the favor of
> 'google-earth' that you can install for both archs and where you could
> say eg. in the 'pkgdesc' that the package provides 32-bit binaries
> (for both archs).
> It is not as much of a problem for me to have 'bin32-google-earth'
> existing in the AUR as long as the other one didn't. It's redundant to
> provide otherwise the same application but the other package provides
> it for i686 only.
> So what should be done? I'm not a TU and neither is srabd - but you
> are.
> Let the discussion begin (please, let it).
>     Thanks for your time,
>     Det

the [multilib] repository was set up last summer and since then
packages in the repository commonly use the "real" package name and
take care about the different architecture environment within the
PKGBUILD (e.g. skype, wine).

However the AUR is not a repository so there's no "Hey pacman, I have
package XYZ just for i686 but down there in your list of repositories
comes [mutlilib] maybe it's there for x86_64." like it is currently
done by flashplugin.

The bin32- naming scheme still is safer for AUR, as one can't really
tell by name if a binary based package comes with support for x86_64
systems using the lib32- packages without this prefix. As this scheme
is also used with the libraries in [multilib] it _seems_ to be fine.

Currently there is no real argument that says "You have to name it
like this." as the naming scheme also has changed within the
repositories. Also I have to quote Bluewind:
  "AUR doesn't support multiple names per package so you're stuck
    with 2 if you want different names"

So I'd say that for now it's fine to keep both packages, though there's
an overlay in what they provide, google-earth includes a conflicts
field so there won't be problems if someone tries to install both.

A solution would be to implement the support for multiple package names
into AUR, the AUR-Team surely loves to get support by people who send
them useful patches. ;-)

Thorsten Töpper
Jabber: atsutane at freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/
Key: 295AFBF4     FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20110327/479de5f8/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list