[aur-general] AUR 4 package search doesn't work

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:25:59 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote:
>* Ralf Mardorf <info.mardorf at rocketmail.com> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00
>+0200):
>> when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name"
>> and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but
>> it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler".
>
>The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find
>them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.

When I searched for the packages they were in AUR 4, but the search
engine didn't find them, that#s why I provided the links:

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/
>https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/
>https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/
         ^^^^ AUR4

>> Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit
>> architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one
>> for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs
>> for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit
>> architecture only?
>> 
>> We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs
>> only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims
>> to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step
>> backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit
>> architecture.
>
>You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do
>you mean by split packages?

Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop
to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit
architecture too? Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit
support?