You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 2016-03-21 11:59:18
- monochromec
- Member
- Registered: 2014-08-30
- Posts: 1
Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
Dear fellow AUR package maintainers,
With the increasing popularity or non-Intel arch installations on Pies, Beagleboards, etc (just to name ARM-based
architectures), there is clearly a growing need to remove the Intel packaging constraints of 32 and 64 bit
based Intel architectures from the AUR. The alternative would be to instantiate separate AURs for different
platform such as ALARM, leading to a fragmentation of code-bases and communities alike.
If a maintainer doesn't have the required
hardware, maybe other people can contribute in terms of build and package software
quality assurance (perhaps this will require some tweaking of the git-based workflow).
How does this community feel about this request?
Offline
#2 2016-03-21 12:01:55
- Awebb
- Member
- Registered: 2010-05-06
- Posts: 6,286
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
Carry this discussion to the mailing list. The x86 support bbs is hardly the right place.
Offline
#3 2016-03-21 12:04:51
- mpan
- Member
- Registered: 2012-08-01
- Posts: 1,207
- Website
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
AUR is for ArchLinux, not for the other distributions.
ArchLinuxARM isn’t ArchLinux. If you want to have AUR-like feature in ArchLinuxARM, as an example, propose it on ArchLinux ARM’s forum.
Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!
Offline
#4 2016-03-21 12:32:16
- Scimmia
- Fellow
- Registered: 2012-09-01
- Posts: 11,559
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
There is no constraint, you can add any architecture you want.
Offline
#5 2016-03-21 12:35:54
- mpan
- Member
- Registered: 2012-08-01
- Posts: 1,207
- Website
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
I believe monochromes referes to the Wiki article on guidelines. It states:
The arch array should contain 'i686' and/or 'x86_64' depending on which architectures it can be built on. You can also use 'any' for architecture independent packages.
Last edited by mpan (2016-03-21 12:36:18)
Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!
Offline
#6 2016-03-21 12:51:51
- Allan
- Pacman
- From: Brisbane, AU
- Registered: 2007-06-09
- Posts: 11,392
- Website
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
Which arm architecture would you add?
Offline
#7 2016-03-21 13:13:39
- Awebb
- Member
- Registered: 2010-05-06
- Posts: 6,286
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
There is no constraint, you can add any architecture you want.
As long as it compiles and runs on at least one (i686, X86_64 or any), no rule change should be required.
@Allan: If I were to add any, I'd add the ones I can test. Would this be acceptable?
Offline
#8 2016-03-21 13:17:58
- Trilby
- Inspector Parrot
- Registered: 2011-11-29
- Posts: 29,530
- Website
Re: Proposal to remove Intel constraint from AUR packaging guidelines
I imagine that anything that builds on one of the arm architectures but cant build on either x86 must be a very arm-specific tool. Given that every arm architecture already has their own repos, any arm-specific tool should just be in those repos. You aren't going to get user-submitted general-purpose tools that can't build on one of the x86 architectures.
"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" - Richard Stallman
Offline