[aur-general] Unsupported architectures in the AUR

Jesse McClure jmcclure at cns.umass.edu
Fri Nov 21 15:39:00 UTC 2014

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Marcel Korpel wrote:
> That said, I wonder why Arch Linux ARM, which *is* a different project,
> doesn't provide its own AUR? Wouldn't that be a solution for ARM-only
> packages?

This was my first thought.  There isn't a reason for arm-only packages
to be in the AUR.  But preventing listing arm as an option along with
i686 or x86_64 would seem just spiteful and silly.  So I thought
allowing any PKGBUILD that at least builds for either supported
architecture would be fine, and additional architectures would be no
issue at all.  While any PKGBUILDs that are for arm only should be kept
somewhere else.

But then this might be a hassle for arm users - now they need to check
two different places for these PKGBUILDs.

I'm doubtful that the 'server burden' of keeping the rare arm-only
PKGBUILD is noteworthy.  The benefit to being good cooperative members
of an open-source community by allowing these rare arm-only PKGBUILDs
would be noteworthy.

I'd love to benefit from PKGBUILDs made by arm users when they could
also build just fine on my x86_64.  Why duplicate effort when a majority
of packages that would work on one would work on the other.

AKA 'Trilby' on archlinux.org

More information about the aur-general mailing list