[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Add support for arch='all' to makepkg

[Dan McGee]

On 10/31/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/10/30, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > On 10/30/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2007/10/30, Gabriel C <nix.or.die at googlemail.com>:
> > > > > I just had to pick one. :-)
> > > > > Another variant I like is 'any'.
> > > > > pacman -Qi outputs:
> > > > > Architecture: all - OK
> > > > > Architecture: any - OK, probably even better
> > > > > Architecture: noarch - huh? sounds bad ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Architecture: generic ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > hm, didn't even thought about it. :)
> > > the problem is that then filenames wil contain -generic suffix which
> > > is too long IMO.
> >
> > I like either 'generic' or 'any'. Dan?
>
> Hm, ok, let it be one of them. I prefer 'any' though.

Don't want to bikeshed this, but let's put this in context:

Current package names:
pidgin-2.2.2-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz
pidgin-2.2.2-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
pidgin-2.2.2-2-ppc.pkg.tar.gz
...

Proposed generic architecture names:
pidgin-2.2.2-2-all.pkg.tar.gz
pidgin-2.2.2-2-generic.pkg.tar.gz
pidgin-2.2.2-2-any.pkg.tar.gz
pidgin-2.2.2-2-???.pkg.tar.gz

My only concern here is that "any", "all", and "generic" are all a bit
useless out of context. In the former package names, the context is
immediately recognized. In the latter, do any of those really make
sense? The problem is "anyarch" or "genericarch" or variants are way
too long.

Damn, another patch lost to politics. :) If I had to pick from the
above, I'd go with "generic" I think because it carries the most
context with it, just like an architecture name would.

-Dan