[aur-general] AUR and unsuported architectures
simongmzlj at gmail.com
Thu May 31 06:03:00 EDT 2012
And could it potentially lead to AUR packages uploaded without either
'i686' or 'x86_64' set?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 31/05/12 01:58, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> I've recently seen some comments in AUR, where a user points out that X
>> package works well on powerpc/arm.
>> I was wondering what's the general approach given to these architectures
>> on AUR; since AUR is unsupported, is it ok to add these architectures to
>> the PKGBUILD's arch array?
>> If it is ok, is it *advised* to do so when apropriate?
>> Supported architectures should see absolutely no change regarding these
>> packages, and unsupported one will benefit from it.
>> Again, being AUR unsupported anyway, I see nothing bad out of this, but
>> I'd like to know the TU's stance on this, especially since I'm about to
>> install archlinuxppc on one of my laptops. :)
>> Cheers, thanks,
> 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.
> Except there might be a few drawbacks:
> * Become a place where ARM/PPC/* will look for support
> * ARM/PPC/* Folks might want to add patches specific for their
> architecture to AUR packages.
> Jelle van der Waa
More information about the aur-general