Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

Xyne · 2009-09-28 18:23:29

I'm currently repackaging Nexuiz to incorporate a libjpeg patch. I'm taking the opportunity to split it into nexuiz and nexuiz-data because the game data is huge and architecture independent.

I've written a PKGBUILD which successfully splits the package but it won't let me overwrite the architecture (yeah, I noticed that it was missing from the PKGBUILD man page's list of overwritable variables). Is there any way to do this?

If not, what would you recommend/prefer? The choices are:
a) a split PKGBUILD which means that the user can easily rebuild the package without having to think about moving the source code files around to avoid a massive duplicate download, but massive duplicate data on the servers and a pain packages to upload (x86_64, i686)
b) an "any" data package in a separate packagebuild

I'm leaning towards the latter unless there's some way to hack the architecture in the split package. I'll file a feature request later but I want to get this up tonight.

*edit*

Scratch that. The whole point of splitting the package is to avoid duplicates on the server. I'll use 2 PKGBUILDs for now and file a feature request for later. Sorry for the noise.

Last edited by Xyne (2009-09-28 18:29:26)

shining · 2009-09-28 20:00:04

I don't understand your edit. I think your dilemma was valid. Both options have its advantages and its inconvenients, as you very well presented.

I also don't understand why you opened a new bug, when both Loui and I pointed you at the existing bug report on the ML :
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15955

Xyne · 2009-09-28 20:20:05

Sorry, I didn't refresh my inbox before opening the bug (well, feature request).

About the edit:
The benefits of splitting the package using 2 PKGBUILDS:
* the game data can be uploaded to "any", which was the original reason for wanting to split the package
* the client can be patched and updated without a massive download (or upload)
The downside is that if the user wants to build the package, he has to think about reusing the source code. All that takes is a simple cp|mv|ln, so it's hardly an issue.

Splitting the package using a split PKGBUILD avoids the need to cp|mv|ln the source and also makes it possible to patch the client, but it still duplicates the data (and adds 2 packages to the mix, one for each arch). Considering that most users won't build it themselves and that those who do will probably know what they're doing anyway, I decided that using 2 PKGBUILDs was the better solution for now.

Allan · 2009-09-28 21:18:20

I have a rough patch to get this working... It is much more annoying than other variables to override so I want to test it some more.

Nezmer · 2009-09-29 15:25:55

Xyne wrote:

The downside is that if the user wants to build the package, he has to think about reusing the source code. All that takes is a simple cp|mv|ln, so it's hardly an issue.

Am I the only one using $SRCDEST ?

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-28 18:23:29

Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

#2 2009-09-28 20:00:04

Re: Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

#3 2009-09-28 20:20:05

Re: Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

#4 2009-09-28 21:18:20

Re: Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

#5 2009-09-29 15:25:55

Re: Is it possible to override architecture in split packages?

Board footer