[aur-general] package-base PKGBUILD with different architecture list for packages inside
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Sun Oct 6 00:50:10 UTC 2019
On 10/5/19 7:48 AM, Attila Greguss via aur-general wrote:
> I have a PKGBUILD Here
> Is there a way to enable the commented out package in the PKGBUILD without
> said package blocking the installation of the other packages on the
> architecture it does not support?
> I'm OK with splitting it out, but I thought I ask first if because I don't
> know the capabilities of PKGBUILD/makepkg.
> Some (not necessary) context:
> Package is for dotnet, and the source archive includes dotnet-host,
> dotnet-runtime, aspnet-runtime, dotnet-sdk for x86_64 and armv7h. For
> aarch64 it does NOT contain aspnet-runtime files, but all the rest.
Yes, and it is also repackaging someone else's prebuilt binaries instead
of building from source (and the source code is available). Is there a
reason the package name does not include the word "bin" in it?
Also generally why not just build from source, exactly like the
unversioned package in [community]?
> I tried to specify the architecture list for aspnet-runtime in the
> PKGBUILD, but if someone tries to install any of the other packages on
> aarch64 it will fail. (see commented out part in file)
Well, no it won't fail. What will fail is trying to build it in the
first place, since adding a split package whose list of arches is
smaller than the global arch=() list is a broken concept. The first
thing makepkg will do is check if all packages contain valid metadata,
and on aarch64 it will refuse to even try to build anything at all,
because it can tell it won't work.
Building from source would fix this, since I assume the source code
I would like to know how this was ever a problem. Did you not try to
build the package for aarch64 before uploading it?
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general