[aur-general] AUR and unsuported architectures
Jelle van der Waa
jelle at vdwaa.nl
Fri Jun 1 02:17:42 EDT 2012
On 01/06/12 02:31, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Thu 31 May 2012 09:56 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote:
>>> On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa <jelle at vdwaa.nl> wrote:
>>>> When I first though about it, I wanted to say "why not", it doesn't hurt
>>>> the functioning of the normal i686,x86_64 packages.
>>> I thought the same, but after thinking more... While AUR is
>>> "unsupported", the project/site is still an official item.
>>> In my mind, it doesn't make sense to include unofficial platforms in
>>> official infrastructure, supported or not.
>>> We don't encourage documentation of other platforms in our wiki (do we?)
>> While I'd wish this weren't true, your argument does make perfect sense,
>> so I guess it's best to keep AUR clear of these architectures.
> I'm not a TU, but I actually think allowing other architectures in the
> PKGBUILDs is a Good Thing. The AUR is supposed be be a place of
> less-restricted user contribution - where packages (and/or
> architectures?) that developers are not interested in can be submitted.
Sure it's not a problem or against the rules. I'm just afraid that ARM
users will use the AUR and then complain that stuff doesn't work.
As I have seen with for example archbang and archlinuxarm questions on
>> It may be a bit of chicken-and-egg, though. The ppc/arm userbase might
>> grow if arch is seen stable enough and seems to have sufficient
>> packages, possibly making it worth being supported, but the lack of
>> infrastructure won't make that so possible.
> Yes, I also see it as a way of welcoming the ppc/arm/etc userbase into
> the main Arch collective, and adding their technological distinctiveness
> to our own.
Jelle van der Waa
More information about the aur-general