[aur-general] Unsupported architectures in the AUR
Pablo Lezaeta Reyes
prflr88 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 01:54:15 UTC 2014
2014-11-21 12:39 GMT-03:00 Jesse McClure <jmcclure at cns.umass.edu>:
> 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
Spiteful or silly, aur packages has ben removed because they contain arm
thing, so if you will do it, be carrefull that the:
"Currently, it [the arch field] should contain i686 and/or x86_64"
could be interpreted by other user and TUs as "only ARCH supported in AUR"
and therefor submit a delete request.
the only 100% safe aproach is that the Wiki or the Aur page state the
official status about those architectures in AUR.
More information about the aur-general