Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

chrisbpinkus · 2013-09-08 02:00:36

There seems to be a flaw in the pcsxr package. It is non-proprietary, which is one reason there is a 32bit and 64bit version of this package in the [community] repositories. But that creates a major problem; the plugins that this software uses are all 32bit, so using the 64bit package is extremely limited. To make things worse, this package is not available in [multilib] so those of us who use a x86_64 Arch are unable to use any of the plugins for this "plugin-based" emulator.

As of now, this package is in the following repos:
i686 [community]
x86_64 [community]

But it needs to be in these repos instead:
i686 [community]
i686 [multilib]

In other words, there does not need to be an x86_64 version of this package, instead there needs to be an i686 in [multilib], so that us x86_64 users can actually run this software to its' potential.

cfr · 2013-09-08 02:07:56

Welcome to the forums.

I don't know what its being non-proprietary has to do with it but your best bet is to file a bug in the bug tracker as it isn't likely that the package maintainers will see your comments here.

chrisbpinkus · 2013-09-08 02:15:39

cfr wrote:

Welcome to the forums.
I don't know what its being non-proprietary has to do with it but your best bet is to file a bug in the bug tracker as it isn't likely that the package maintainers will see your comments here.

Well, i guess the non-proprietary part was just my way of explaining that a x86_64 version of the program was compiled for it, while all the proprietary emulators are in 32bit only (because that is the intended architecture of the original developers). I should have used the term open-source instead.

I will try filing bug report, as this issue creates a major pain for anyone that is on x86_64.

Trilby · 2013-09-08 02:22:43

I agree that a bug report is the way to go. Might I also suggest careful wording. The most effective titles focus on the objective facts of the matter.

I suspect a title or heading like "pcsxr package from [community] should be in [multilib]". Words like "Major oversight" take up space that could be used by more information carrying words, and could alienate those you want help from if you catch them in an off mood.

cfr · 2013-09-08 02:40:36

I second the point about wording.

Re. "non-proprietary" - it is just that it couldn't be in the official repos if it was proprietary and so the relevance wasn't obvious to me.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-09-08 02:00:36

Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

#2 2013-09-08 02:07:56

Re: Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

#3 2013-09-08 02:15:39

Re: Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

#4 2013-09-08 02:22:43

Re: Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

#5 2013-09-08 02:40:36

Re: Major oversight with "pcsxr" package in [community]. Needs [multilib].

Board footer