You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hey everyone,
I just wanted to let you all know that the current "development" makepkg checks for the existance of an 'arch' variable before building the package. Please, if you can, begin adding 'arch=(i686)' to your PKGBUILDs (unless you've tested it on other architectures, too).
example:
arch=(i686 x86_64)
Offline
any more documentation on this? like does leaving x86_64 out mean that it won't build on a 64bit system?
Offline
Well, basically it's just a guideline. The way the arch repos do it is that the Arch64 guys come through later, build it, then tack x86_64 onto the end assuming success.
Think of it as a little "hey it builds and works on this architecture" check. Like md5sums, they can be ignored at buildtime, but it is "good practice" to notate the architectures.
Offline
gotcha. last question: does this require a bump to pkgrel?
Offline
no. right now it is only for makepkg (much like md5sums), so a new package will be identical to the old.
edit: and also, this isn't released just yet - you have lots of time 8)
Offline
Offline
Erm, will the example PKGBUILD in ABS be update with the arch=(i686) as default?
Offline
Yes, PKGBUILD.proto will be updated with new changes from makepkg.
Offline
Will makepkg3 and pacman3-style packages install fine with pacman ( old ) ? Or should I just update the PKGBUILD's, and then rebuild close to pacman3 release?
Offline
they'll install no problems. The arch=() variable has been in a lot of repository packages for a while.
James
Offline
Will makepkg3 and pacman3-style packages install fine with pacman ( old ) ? Or should I just update the PKGBUILD's, and then rebuild close to pacman3 release?
I wouldn't built official packages with the new makepkg just yet. They _should_ work, in theory, and you'd have to rename them to remove the -ARCH suffix, but I don't know about pushing real repo packages built like that just yet.
Maybe test it out on a custom repo for a bit?
Offline
Pages: 1