[aur-general] AUR and unsuported architectures
sanskritfritz at gmail.com
Sat Jul 21 04:15:55 EDT 2012
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:52:39PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> But that would simply add "arm" or "ppc" to the ARCH array. The point
>> is to know beforehand if the package works - currently I can know if a
>> package works or not in my arch (amd64) by looking at the PKGBUILD.
>> That's the whole point of that array.
> Ultimately it sounds like a good idea to set up a modified AUR for each of
> initially mirrors and modifies the arch of the current, later incoming packages
> to aur and then let them be adopted by the people who use the arches. Then,
> after the situation has fully surfaced, the "beforehand"-clause would be
> satisfied. Only few modificaitons are actually needed, like a field "untested"
> or something to indicate a package hasn't been acted upon or verified since the
> automatic conversion. If a user finds a verified, he might be able to unverify
> a package or be requested to use the comments section.
> In a generalized approach this could solve even more of the current issues
> mentioned with aur, if it would incrementalize by version, per-arch-diffs and
> per-taco-diffs... making pkgbuilds patchwork. :)
Is there an official consensus about this question? I was asked to
include 'arm' to the architecture array in fish-shell-git. I have no
problems with that, but want to conform to the general
More information about the aur-general