I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

shining · 2009-09-02 09:20:34

bangkok_manouel wrote:

Allan wrote:
As an aside, some work has been done on pacman by Shining that will make it harder to stuff your system by installing packages for the wrong architecture. This will mean the "arch" in the package name (ultimately in the internal PKGINFO file) will play a more important role and make it clearer than "any" means installable on "any" architecture.
Could please let us know a bit more? Like you, I'm using 64on32, is it going to be an issue? TIA.

These patches (currently here : http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/xavier/p … g/?h=arch) indeed give a meaning to the "any" architecture in pacman.
so I documented that in the new Architecture pacman.conf option :

+*Architecture =* auto | i686 | x86_64 | ...::
+ If set, pacman will only allow to install packages of the given
+ architecture (e.g. 'i686', 'x86_64', etc). The special value 'auto' will
+ use the system architecture, as in 'uname -m'.
+ If unset, no architecture checks are made.
+ *NOTE*: the packages with the special architecture 'any' can always be
+ installed, as they are meant to be architecture independent.
+

I discussed a bit with Thomas about this option, and he mentioned this special 64on32 setup, so at least I provided this easy way to disable any arch check by commenting out the Architecture option.

But I am wondering, maybe you could already use it, I need more info about this setup. Do you just have a 64bit kernel and install 32 bit packages ?
pacman databases only allow you to use either 32bit or 64bit packages anyway. so how do you deal with that to manage/upgrade both the kernel and all the other packages ?
also does uname -m report x86_64 on this setup ?

I think you might be able to use Architecture = i686 most of the time.
Besides if you use this option, it allows you to use server url like : Server = ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/$repo/os/$arch
so you can quickly switch between i686 and x86_64 url by just changing Architecture

bangkok_manouel · 2009-09-02 09:41:39

shining wrote:

bangkok_manouel wrote:
Allan wrote:
As an aside, some work has been done on pacman by Shining that will make it harder to stuff your system by installing packages for the wrong architecture. This will mean the "arch" in the package name (ultimately in the internal PKGINFO file) will play a more important role and make it clearer than "any" means installable on "any" architecture.
Could please let us know a bit more? Like you, I'm using 64on32, is it going to be an issue? TIA.
These patches (currently here : http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/xavier/p … g/?h=arch) indeed give a meaning to the "any" architecture in pacman.
so I documented that in the new Architecture pacman.conf option :
+*Architecture =* auto | i686 | x86_64 | ...::
+ If set, pacman will only allow to install packages of the given
+ architecture (e.g. 'i686', 'x86_64', etc). The special value 'auto' will
+ use the system architecture, as in 'uname -m'.
+ If unset, no architecture checks are made.
+ *NOTE*: the packages with the special architecture 'any' can always be
+ installed, as they are meant to be architecture independent.
+
I discussed a bit with Thomas about this option, and he mentioned this special 64on32 setup, so at least I provided this easy way to disable any arch check by commenting out the Architecture option.
But I am wondering, maybe you could already use it, I need more info about this setup. Do you just have a 64bit kernel and install 32 bit packages ?

yes it's a standard 32bit install on which I installed a 64bit kernel.

pacman databases only allow you to use either 32bit or 64bit packages anyway. so how do you deal with that to manage/upgrade both the kernel and all the other packages ?

indeed, you have to deal with kernel install/upgrades manually. anyway, I'm using andrew's -mmotm patches for my kernels (only for fun - remember that strange pacman bug i reported few weeks ago, kernel related?) so I build each and every kernel by myself. I still have the stock kernel installed but it is a 32bit one. i build my kernels on a x86_64 machine of course. edit: all the other packages can be installed and updated with pacman without any issue, the whole userland is pure 32bit.

also does uname -m report x86_64 on this setup ?

yep. you need to use the linux32 tool every time you want to build something or the wrong arch will be reported.

I think you might be able to use Architecture = i686 most of the time.
Besides if you use this option, it allows you to use server url like : Server = ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/$repo/os/$arch
so you can quickly switch between i686 and x86_64 url by just changing Architecture

i was just worried that pacman would refuse to install a x86_64 package on a 32bit install (well even if it's quite easy to install a kernel without a package manager but hey, i do love my pacman )

Last edited by bangkok_manouel (2009-09-02 09:50:31)

Allan · 2009-09-02 09:42:10

shining wrote:

This part of the wiki is obviously outdated and just needs an update (by someone with the appropriate rights. this page is apparently locked).

Done.

shining · 2009-09-02 18:30:35

bangkok_manouel wrote:

i was just worried that pacman would refuse to install a x86_64 package on a 32bit install (well even if it's quite easy to install a kernel without a package manager but hey, i do love my pacman )

btw, the pacman.conf Architecture option can also be overridden on the command line.
so pacman -U --arch x86_64 kernel64.pkg.tar.gz should work too

Allan · 2009-09-02 23:11:27

I also have a 64on32 setup. I handle kernel upgrades automatically by having a [kernel64] repo which is updated when I rsync my local pacakge repos. Most of my package building is done using modified version of "mkarchroot" and "makechrootpkg" from devtools which have a sprinkling of linux32 and linux64 calls throughout. I also have some bash aliases...

# arch 64_on_32 aliases
alias configure="linux32 ./configure"
alias makepkg="linux32 makepkg"
alias make="linux32 make"

If I used zsh, the configure alias could be improved and this setup would be more seemless.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-09-02 09:20:34

Re: I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

#27 2009-09-02 09:41:39

Re: I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

#28 2009-09-02 09:42:10

Re: I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

#29 2009-09-02 18:30:35

Re: I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

#30 2009-09-02 23:11:27

Re: I noticed that more and more PKGBUILDs are using 'any' [solved]

Board footer