[SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 16:31:33

Hi all!

I have to install icaclient, which has lib32-libxp as a dependency. Everything goes smoothly, except installing that last dependency, which generates the error:

libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture

I have CARCH=x86_64, and the PKGBUILD file in question has arch=('x86_64'). So I'm not too sure where to go from here.

Thanks in advance!

[SOLVED] aura doesn't install the package correctly. I used makepkg and then installed the new .pkg.tar.gz file that is produced.

Last edited by mhelvens (2013-12-16 22:49:31)

karol · 2013-12-16 16:36:28

How do you install lib32-libxp?
libxp is in the repos, you need to get https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libxp/

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 16:37:11

Some extra info: In the .pkg.tar.gz archive there is a file .PKGINFO with a line arch = i686. This might be helpful to someone with more Arch-fu, but for all I know this still makes sense, since we are talking about a 32-bit library.

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 16:39:29

karol wrote:

How do you install lib32-libxp?
libxp is in the repos, you need to get https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libxp/

I'm using aura, which selected the package as a dependency and automatically fetched it from there.

Scimmia · 2013-12-16 16:40:20

because you didn't get lib32-libxp, you got the i686 version of libxp. Two different packages.

Last edited by Scimmia (2013-12-16 16:41:03)

karol · 2013-12-16 16:43:16

See comments on https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/goog … mments=all wrt to Aura issues.
https://github.com/fosskers/aura/issues/174

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 16:44:50

Scimmia wrote:

because you didn't get lib32-libxp, you got the i686 version of libxp. Two different packages.

Hm.. Indeed. Seems that the PKGBUILD file has an error, then?

karol · 2013-12-16 16:48:03

mhelvens wrote:

Scimmia wrote:
because you didn't get lib32-libxp, you got the i686 version of libxp. Two different packages.
Hm.. Indeed. Seems that the PKGBUILD file has an error, then?

Have you tried another AUR helper or bare makepkg?

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 16:52:39

karol wrote:

mhelvens wrote:
Scimmia wrote:
because you didn't get lib32-libxp, you got the i686 version of libxp. Two different packages.
Hm.. Indeed. Seems that the PKGBUILD file has an error, then?
Have you tried another AUR helper or bare makepkg?

No, I haven't. I'm afraid I have to leave right now, so can't test it right away.

But really, please take a look at the PKGBUILD file. It seems obvious to me now that the error is there, as it's pointing to the wrong .pkg.tar.gz. The right one would be here:

ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/x86_64 … pkg.tar.xz

karol · 2013-12-16 17:01:13

The PKGBUILD seems to work for other users.
I don't have a 64-bit system, so I can't test it.

HalosGhost · 2013-12-16 17:02:36

mhelvens wrote:

No, I haven't. I'm afraid I have to leave right now, so can't test it right away.

You should get used to running makepkg before you use a frontend. It will make all our lives much simpler.

But really, please take a look at the PKGBUILD file. It seems obvious to me now that the error is there, as it's pointing to the wrong .pkg.tar.gz. The right one would be here:
ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/x86_64 … pkg.tar.xz

No, that would be the package for an x86_64 architecture. lib32- packages are those that explicitly offer the i686 libraries so that x64 architectures can run 32-bit programs.

All the best,

-HG

Scimmia · 2013-12-16 17:28:52

mhelvens wrote:

karol wrote:
mhelvens wrote:
Hm.. Indeed. Seems that the PKGBUILD file has an error, then?
Have you tried another AUR helper or bare makepkg?
No, I haven't. I'm afraid I have to leave right now, so can't test it right away.
But really, please take a look at the PKGBUILD file. It seems obvious to me now that the error is there, as it's pointing to the wrong .pkg.tar.gz. The right one would be here:
ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/extra/os/x86_64 … pkg.tar.xz

Alright, the mistake you made was using the package that was downloaded by that PKGBUILD instead of the one generated by it.

The problem is not in the PKGBUILD, it's with how you used it.

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 21:58:50

HalosGhost wrote:

You should get used to running makepkg before you use a frontend. It will make all our lives much simpler.

That would defeat the purpose of using a frontend in the first place: to reduce the effort of installing AUR packages.

What I can and should do from now on is run makepkg when I run into trouble with aura — before asking for help here. You live, you learn.

Thanks!

HalosGhost · 2013-12-16 22:07:45

mhelvens wrote:

HalosGhost wrote:
You should get used to running makepkg before you use a frontend. It will make all our lives much simpler.
That would defeat the purpose of using a frontend in the first place: to reduce the effort of installing AUR packages.

You misunderstand. I'm saying you should understand the backend before you use a frontend. That is the Arch way.

All the best,

-HG

karol · 2013-12-16 22:10:23

You learn to walk (makepkg) before you learn to run (AUR helpers).
The helpers are nice, make things easy, but they can break. If you can't run, you still can walk and get to where you wanted to go.

mhelvens · 2013-12-16 22:31:46

HalosGhost wrote:

mhelvens wrote:
HalosGhost wrote:
You should get used to running makepkg before you use a frontend. It will make all our lives much simpler.
That would defeat the purpose of using a frontend in the first place: to reduce the effort of installing AUR packages.
You misunderstand. I'm saying you should understand the backend before you use a frontend. That is the Arch way.

Generally speaking, it's also my way. But it's possible to take this philosophy too far. For example, makepkg is itself a frontend. So is make. So is gcc, if you get right down to it. Where do you draw the line?

In my case I had already installed several AUR packages manually (including aura itself, of course), and thought I understood the process well enough to use an automation tool. Expecting someone to become an expert first doesn't seem reasonable. I had no doubt that something would go wrong eventually. But isn't that what this forum is for?

karol wrote:

You learn to walk (makepkg) before you learn to run (AUR helpers).

I don't think the analogy fits. Walking is easier than running. ;-)

Arch Linux

#1 2013-12-16 16:31:33

[SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#2 2013-12-16 16:36:28

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#3 2013-12-16 16:37:11

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#4 2013-12-16 16:39:29

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#5 2013-12-16 16:40:20

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#6 2013-12-16 16:43:16

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#7 2013-12-16 16:44:50

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#8 2013-12-16 16:48:03

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#9 2013-12-16 16:52:39

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#10 2013-12-16 17:01:13

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#11 2013-12-16 17:02:36

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#12 2013-12-16 17:28:52

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#13 2013-12-16 21:58:50

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#14 2013-12-16 22:07:45

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#15 2013-12-16 22:10:23

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

#16 2013-12-16 22:31:46

Re: [SOLVED] "libxp-1.0.2-1-i686 does not have a valid architecture"

Board footer