[aur-general] AUR and unsuported architectures

Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo at osvaldobarrera.com.ar
Thu May 31 08:56:40 EDT 2012

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.

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.

In any case, it's good to know the official stance so I know what to do
in these sort of cases.


Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

More information about the aur-general mailing list