[aur-general] Unsupported architectures in the AUR
g.schlisio at dukun.de
Fri Nov 21 10:02:25 UTC 2014
>> I wonder how opinions on this matter would change if ten thousand
>> arm-only packages were dropped on the AUR overnight?
> What are the odds of that happening? Also, how could a further
> decision not handle that case at said point? Architecture-specific
> software has been a niche for almost decades now since cpus became
> satisfyingly fast to run compiled code. Maybe I just personally don't
> use assembly widely enough and hence don't see the problem.
i think, arm-only packages (as well as other unofficial architectures)
should stay out of AUR.
the current state is that almost all packages i encounter as a normal
arch user are principially runnable for me. this looks different from an
arm perspective. for them, most packages are not usable and it depends
on their luck and work, to get things building.
if we allow more non-official architecture packages in the AUR, the
situation will not improve very much for the unofficial archs. but for
conventional arch users, it becomes much more likely to encounter a
package that does simply not build on their architecture.
since AUR is open source, other architectures should use an own setup,
to keep things clean and userfriendly. this means some more
administration work, but i think, this provides best usability for all
the word package here means tarball from the AUR.
thanks for considering.
More information about the aur-general