[pacman-dev] $ARCH suffix on packages

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 19:07:57 EDT 2006

2006/10/11, Essien Ita Essien <essiene at datavibe.net>:
> >> 1) protecting users from installing x86_64 packages on i686, or so
> >>
> >
> > Heh? $ARCH suffix is just a part of filename. Only arch=(...) in
> > .PKGINFO really should matter (and "protect"). Or I'm missing
> > something?
> >
> >
> yes, you're missing something :)
> Why we're not complaining right now is that there is really no large
> community using pacman. If there was a Non-ArchLinux/Frugalware site
> that keeps thirdparty pacman pkgs (something akin to rpmfind.net, etc),
> you'll immedietly see why its neccessary for the person downloading.

Wrong example , IMHO. :-)
rpmfind.net and other such sites are evil, IMHO. :-)
How user can be sure that rpm he downloads will work on his distro? It
can be compiled with different gcc, glibc, dependencies, use different
file structure etc. It's just file format. Users should download
packages from their distro's (or unofficial users') repos _only_,

> Also, if like me, you keep having to build packages for different
> architectures, and keep them around on your system, yes, you can put
> them in different directories, but its slightly a more resilient design
> if the packages carry the info with them programmatically (via
> arch=(foobar) in PKGBUILD) and visually foobar-x.y-z.ppc.pkg.tar.gz.
> Its not exactly a show stopper, but its a *good* decision (i see more
> advantages than disadvantages).
> <snip>

That's more a matter of taste, I suppose.
I don't try to say that IMHO starting using $ARCH will be a terrible
mistake. But I don't see enough advantages for making this change.

Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list