[aur-general] AUR and unsuported architectures

Loui Chang louipc.ist at gmail.com
Thu May 31 20:31:40 EDT 2012

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.

> 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.

More information about the aur-general mailing list