You are not logged in.

#1 2012-07-18 12:45:59

masutu
Member
Registered: 2010-01-30
Posts: 40

Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Hi,

i got a question: Should i automatically add x86_64 to my PKGBUILDs or not? I'm only running 32bit.
My default behaviour always was to not add it and wait until somebody sends me a comment like "hi, it's running fine on x86_64, please add..." or "hi, you need to blablabla to get this running on x86_64" and then i would normally drop the package with a comment that i'm unable to maintain 64bit packages.
Now, recently i got a comment for one of my packages like "hi, fix your shit, x86_64 is so common these day".
So what's your opinion/Is there a default policy that i've overlooked? Should i stick to my old behaviour not adding x86_64 by default at the risk of annoying users and making things more complicated (comment ping-pong) or should i just add it and assume it'll be okay? Is there any guide/article which mentions potential problems with building 64bit packages, so that i can asses if there might occur problems or not?

Offline

#2 2012-07-18 12:47:43

Barrucadu
Member
From: York, England
Registered: 2008-03-30
Posts: 1,158
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

I would say that unless you have tested the package on x86_64, or heard from someone who has, don't add it.

Offline

#3 2012-07-18 12:53:42

progandy
Member
Registered: 2012-05-17
Posts: 2,151

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

If you want to add 64bit support as soon as possible, you could ask for a tester in the forum.

Offline

#4 2012-07-18 13:29:56

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

If you're just looking for an unofficial opinion, then...

Yes, I would add x86_64 before testing it. Unless it's something special (like a program that comes precompiled or something particularly low level) then it should build the same on both architechtures.

In the case where it doesn't actually work, someone will let you know, and quite possibly, help you fix it. My point is, adding x86_64 without testing it will probably be fine. Use your best judgement.

...And since this opinion is now forever recorded on the Arch Linux forums, I have no chance of ever becoming a Trusted User. wink

Edit: I wanted to see what package you were talking about specifically, so I did a search an the AUR. Holy moley, do you really maintain 45 packages? yikes

Last edited by drcouzelis (2012-07-18 13:35:38)

Offline

#5 2012-07-18 15:13:34

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 13,435

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

As a counterpoint, if someone did this at $DAYJOB, I would be escorting them out the door.  I am just saying....


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
You assume people are rational and influenced by evidence.  You must not work with the public much. -- Trilby
----
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Online

#6 2012-07-18 15:53:35

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

ewaller wrote:

As a counterpoint, if someone did this at $DAYJOB, I would be escorting them out the door.  I am just saying....

Oh, don't be so dramatic. No one ever got fired for submitting a bad PKGBUILD to the AUR.

...but people who submit destructive PKGBUILD files, on the other hand, should be forced to write their own GNU Autotools scripts until they've learned their lesson.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2012-07-18 15:58:03)

Offline

#7 2012-07-18 16:39:02

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

masutu wrote:

Should i stick to my old behaviour not adding x86_64 by default at the risk of annoying users and making things more complicated (comment ping-pong)....

Yes, stick with it. You don't want the kind of users who are annoyed by this anyway. Also, it takes two to play ping-pong - just put down the bat, and walk away from the table. smile

Offline

#8 2012-07-18 16:48:38

Xyne
Moderator/TU
Registered: 2008-08-03
Posts: 5,725
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

drcouzelis wrote:

Oh, don't be so dramatic. No one ever got fired for submitting a bad PKGBUILD to the AUR.

...but people who submit destructive PKGBUILD files, on the other hand, should be forced to write their own GNU Autotools scripts until they've learned their lesson.

Fired, no. Dragged into the back room by some TUs and beaten with a rubber hose... well, the secret TU rules do not allow me to confirm or deny such things. Let's just say that once their hands heal, AUR users check their PKGBUILDs at least 5 times before submitting them again.

As for destructive PKGBUILDs, we give those guys access to Allan's developer accounts so they can help him out.

Offline

#9 2012-07-18 17:01:48

masutu
Member
Registered: 2010-01-30
Posts: 40

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Hi guys, thanks for your opinions so far.

drcouzelis wrote:

...see what package you were talking about specifically...

Okay, here's three examples of what i meant (look at the comments):

  1. ezthumb
    PKGBUILD first without 'x86_64', user reported package is working on 64bit, arch added, user promised to check 64bit versions in the future -> optimal

  2. miniaudicle
    Package dropped because of special tweaks needed for x86_64

  3. ebumeter
    User kind of demands to add x86_64 automatically

drcouzelis wrote:

Holy moley, do you really maintain 45 packages?

Um, do i have to feel abnormal? Yes, i know, no hobbies, no friends... wink

Okay, think, i'll stay with not adding it by default, asking "for a tester in the forum" (progandy) is a good advice though. Maybe i'll start a thread with a mass-testing-request for all my packages that need to be checked. Nevertheless, i think the general problem remains, even if one release is tested on x86_64 i cannot be sure, that future releases will still build and work fine on 64bit...
Maybe bad style, but may i bump the last question from my original post:
Is there any guide which mentions the specific differences between i686 and x86_64 in matters of creating packages/getting code to compile, etc.?

Last edited by masutu (2012-07-18 17:53:18)

Offline

#10 2012-07-18 17:32:18

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

masutu wrote:
drcouzelis wrote:

Holy moley, do you really maintain 45 packages?

Um, do i have to feel abnormal? Yes, i know, no hobbies, no friends...

No, no, I was just impressed by the amount of your contribution! When I think about it, I suppose I contribute a lot too, just not so much in the area of PKGBUILD files...

...but after participating in this thread I suppose that's for the best. wink

Offline

#11 2012-07-18 18:01:51

triplesquarednine
Member
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 630

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

@Masuto

I am one of the people who asked you to add x86_64 to pkgbuilds, more specifically - petri-foo && ebumeter - which both compile fine and work on x86_64. Which is exactly the reason i asked you to add x86_64. ie: i use both of those packages, almost daily on my 64bit system and didn't ask you to add x86_64 without first making sure they worked okay. Also, even if their was a (later) problem of x86_64 version not compiling - the problem would be reported upstream to the developer, as a problem like that should be reported upstream, rather than expecting the packager to have to fix the developers the code.

I'd also like to point something out here; I did not make any demands, nor did i say this;

masuto wrote:

hi, fix your shit, x86_64 is so common these day

Now here is actually what i said;

triplesquarednine wrote:

*please* fix your pkgbuild;

==> ERROR: ebumeter is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.
Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
such as arch=('x86_64').

64bit CPUs are pretty much standard these days, so you should have x86_64 specified in there.

cheerz

I see a big difference in your interpretation of what i said vs. what was actually said;

I politely asked you to fix your pkgbuild and 'cheerz' also indicates a salute / thanks / gratitude / appreciation... 

Maybe i am wrong to assume you 'should' have x86_64, using the reasoning that 64bit CPUs dominate the market and are quite common place ~ but when both packages are working fine for 64bit and only require adding x86_64 to the arch=() in order for x86_64 users to use them - i can't imagine any reason to not add them.

do we really need to have separate x86_64 pkgbuilds/AUR for either of those packages?

food for thought.

Last edited by triplesquarednine (2012-07-18 18:03:22)

Offline

#12 2012-07-18 18:09:25

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,537

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Let's assume the opposite: If I create a PKGBUILD on my 64bit platform, how can I know it'll compile and run fine on 32bit?

Offline

#13 2012-07-18 18:20:55

triplesquarednine
Member
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 630

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Awebb wrote:

Let's assume the opposite: If I create a PKGBUILD on my 64bit platform, how can I know it'll compile and run fine on 32bit?

Well, on a 64bit system you have options that are not available to a 32bit system. Some of these include;

- 32bit bundled system or multilib system on Arch64
- a 32bit VM to test your packages against.
- Asking for help via testers from within the Arch community

only the last option is available to someone packaging (for both x86/x86_64) using a 32bit system. But i think it in itself, is likely good enough.

my 2 cents smile

Last edited by triplesquarednine (2012-07-18 18:21:51)

Offline

#14 2012-07-18 19:15:15

progandy
Member
Registered: 2012-05-17
Posts: 2,151

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

- a 32bit VM to test your packages against.

That is also true when you have a 32bit system. Depending on your processor you can have a 64bit guest on a 32bit host with VirtualBox, too. If your processor doesn't work, you can still use QEMU.

Offline

#15 2012-07-18 19:35:46

Xyne
Moderator/TU
Registered: 2008-08-03
Posts: 5,725
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Awebb wrote:

Let's assume the opposite: If I create a PKGBUILD on my 64bit platform, how can I know it'll compile and run fine on 32bit?

You install a 32-bit lightweight chroot and test it.

Offline

#16 2012-07-18 19:52:04

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

triplesquarednine wrote:

i use both of those packages, almost daily on my 64bit system and didn't ask you to add x86_64 without first making sure they worked okay.

Perfect - the system works smile

Oh, except for one little detail - you forgot to tell him that they worked:

triplesquarednine wrote:

*please* fix your pkgbuild;

==> ERROR: ebumeter is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.
Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
such as arch=('x86_64').

64bit CPUs are pretty much standard these days, so you should have x86_64 specified in there.

cheerz

Two bits of advice come to mind:
1. Lighten up. smile Surely it's obvious that masutu is just kidding with the "hey, fix your shit" stuff?
2. Follow the commonly accepted process fully, even if it's not yet fully documented. You were almost there, you just forgot that important detail.

Offline

#17 2012-07-18 19:52:48

masutu
Member
Registered: 2010-01-30
Posts: 40

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

@triplesquarednine: Hi,

I see a big difference in your interpretation of what i said vs. what was actually said

you're absolutly right, i have to apologize, guess i took your comment the wrong way. Sorry.

Anyway, it was more a general statement/question, because i see many comments like "hey, you _forgot_ to add x86_64" where my point was, that package maintainers might do that for a good reason.

Didn't know that you are able to run a 64bit vm on a 32bit host system (if your processor is a 64bit one which supports hardware virtualization, which mine does).  Good news on one hand, on the other hand that means a lot of additional work...

Last edited by masutu (2012-07-18 19:55:13)

Offline

#18 2012-07-18 20:55:40

triplesquarednine
Member
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 630

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

@Progandy: lol. Totally forgot about Virtualbox/QEMU supporting 64bit guests on 32bit wink  I guess between using VMware for years and also not running 32bit CPU and/or 32bit OS (aside from an older laptop) i spaced out on that. 

@Tomk: You are correct, i probably should have clarified that the packages worked. I will make sure that I specify this to a packager if/when it comes up again.

On your other point of advice to 'lighten up' - I wasn't up in arms over anything, in fact it is quite the opposite. i was clarifying my position to Masuto (who by his own admission above) thought that i meant something which I did not. I think it is important to address miscommunications when they happen, wouldn't you agree?

@Masuto: No apology necessary, i just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding smile  I can see what you are driving at though - as far as package maintainers may have good reasons to not include x86_64. I don't know the statistics of 32bit archers / 64bit archers, but i imagine you also understand what i was saying about a 64bit OS being common place. Anyways, as far as Ebumeter and Petri-foo ~ i can participate in testing for x86_64, i don't mind at all. wink

Offline

#19 2012-07-18 21:19:08

kevku
Member
From: Estonia
Registered: 2009-11-21
Posts: 57

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

dunno never tested packages for 32bit just added both as default, no real problems afaik

Offline

#20 2012-07-19 07:36:52

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,537

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Xyne wrote:
Awebb wrote:

Let's assume the opposite: If I create a PKGBUILD on my 64bit platform, how can I know it'll compile and run fine on 32bit?

You install a 32-bit lightweight chroot and test it.

But you DO test it, you won't simply add i686, just because you feel it might compile as well as it does on 64bit. I'd make the wild claim, that most to almost all software compiling well on 64bit will also compile on 32bit, but we all know how well wild guesses work out in the end.

Offline

#21 2012-07-19 13:03:59

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,416

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

I've been in the opposite situation, as i run 64-bit exclusively .(no 32-bit VMs ).

Recently i adopted some canon printer driver packages, and they were hard enough to get right for x86_64 .
I posted them on aur with a comment that they were only x86_64 for now, and asked for people with 32-bit systems to volunteer for testing.

Some users did come, and i adjusted the pkgbuild for 32-bit, send it to them and after confirmation it worked, uploaded a new package to aur with i686 included.

Personally, i prefer to add i686 to my packages only if i got confirmation it works.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#22 2012-07-19 23:03:28

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,304
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Barrucadu wrote:

I would say that unless you have tested the package on x86_64, or heard from someone who has, don't add it.

This. Don't make unsubstantiated claims (The sun revolves around the Earth).

Offline

#23 2012-07-30 22:06:09

jwm-art
Member
Registered: 2011-02-01
Posts: 84

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Matsutu you could have always asked the developers what systems they test their software on. Speaking for myself, I have no problem  with you asking or with assisting with you anything else you might want to know so that Petri-Foo can be packaged well.

My development environment for Petri-Foo is x86_64. 99% of compiling/testing goes on in a regularly updated Arch Linux. I'm dual booting Arch with a 64bit Debian stable and use the latter as a guide for identifying the oldest library versions I should ensure building does not fail for.

Offline

#24 2012-08-03 12:48:58

masutu
Member
Registered: 2010-01-30
Posts: 40

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Thank you guys for all your answers, here's a little 'field report' of what i've learned and what i've done:
That you can run a 64bit VM on a 32bit is great, i installed one (btw i like the new installer) and tried to build correct all my 45 PKGBUILDs (not yet synced with aur), where 5 or so of them were known before to work on x86_64:
-2 don't build on x86_64 (yet)
-4 were broken because of new linking problems
-3 contained wrong 'arch' entries (like 'any' where it should be 'i686...' or vice versa
my conclusion:
-better 'fix my shit' smile from time to time (7 incorrect packages!)
-2 of 45 (4.5%) need special tweaks to run on x86_64. comparision: grep for CARCH definitions in all PKGBUILDs in /var/abs gives 151 packages (4684 in total:  3%). so most of the packages seem to build flawless on both archs, but one can't be sure...

@jwm-art: thanks for our offer, speaking of that... could you please have a look at https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=146359, i got a special problem with your petri-foo code...

Offline

#25 2012-08-15 03:14:10

hobarrera
Member
From: CABA, Argentina
Registered: 2011-04-12
Posts: 321
Website

Re: Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

drcouzelis wrote:
ewaller wrote:

As a counterpoint, if someone did this at $DAYJOB, I would be escorting them out the door.  I am just saying....

Oh, don't be so dramatic. No one ever got fired for submitting a bad PKGBUILD to the AUR.

...but people who submit destructive PKGBUILD files, on the other hand, should be forced to write their own GNU Autotools scripts until they've learned their lesson.

Really?  You test every upgrade of every package on several architectures?

Generally, if the software is know to work equally well on x86 and x86_64, then there shouldn't be any issue.  If it's a -bin package, is hardware related, or has something special that would make you doubt, have someone test it first.

There's plenty of packages that don't really need that much testing on every arch (ie: thunderbird plugins, gtk themes).  While kernel modules are on the other end of the arena.  Self-updating packages, or java stuff with non-java dependencies.


GPG Key | AUR packages | github

caffeine-ng: Temporarily disable screensaver/sleeping with a simple click.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB