You are not logged in.

#1 2017-11-13 11:53:13

GordonGR
Member
From: Thessaloniki, Greece
Registered: 2011-11-07
Posts: 258

[Solved] About i686 AUR packages

ngoonee wrote:

And this is a pretty deep necrobump, really.

That is very correct, and I apologise for continuing it, but there is something I must ask.

What happens to the AUR 32-bit packages? Is there a decision about it? Do we continue including "i686" to the $arch variable or not?

Last edited by GordonGR (2017-11-13 13:26:03)


Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU E3400 @ 2.60GHz, XFCE 4.12, x86_64. AURs.

“No one without the knowledge of geometry may enter.“ Plato.

Offline

#2 2017-11-13 12:29:08

Trilby
Forum Fellow
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 17,449
Website

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

If the package works on i686, then yes.  AUR packages can and do add countless other architectures incluing various ARM architectures.

The change has been that i686 is no longer supported by arch devs and i686 packages are not practical for arch devs to build, sign, and distribute.  There was not some cultural upheaval such that we have a desire to intentionally ostracize users of 32 bit hardware.  One makes an AUR package to share with others, why would you then deliberately make it hard for others to use it for no reason.

That said, if you don't know whether your package works on i686 and you have no intent to make any revisions for i686-specific issues, then don't list it.


Resist the GNU world order.

Offline

#3 2017-11-13 12:30:00

fsckd
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-06-15
Posts: 4,073

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

Split from here. GordonGR you can edit the title if you want.

My 2 cents (read unofficial opinion): The situation is now similar to that with ALARM. makepkg has the option --ignorearch. People can continue to list i686 in the arch array out of courtesy for those using Arch32 just as some list ARM architectures. It doesn't seem necessary though.

FWIW, the three packages I maintain will continue to list i686 for the foreseeable future.


aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies

Offline

#4 2017-11-13 12:40:19

phw
Member
Registered: 2013-05-27
Posts: 268

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

Just my 2 cents as an Arch user and a maintainer of a handful of AUR packages: I would suggest keeping i686 unless it requires special treatment and the maintainer of that package does not want to do that.

Rationale:

The majority of packages does not require any adjustments for supporting i686. As the AUR only contains instructions to build packages (aka PKGBUILDS), but no actual binary packages, I see no harm in allowing those instructions to allow being used for i686 builds without modifications. That way AUR packages can easily be used by other Arch based distributions still allowing 32bit installs, e.g. the Arch Linux ARM.

But in the cases where it is not easy to support the 32bit build and additional effort is required, I would not mandate that the AUR maintainers provide this support. The maintainers can still do it if they want to (maybe they use the 32bit version themselves), but if they don't it's no reason to complain. After all the AUR is hosted by Arch Linux and it is provided for the use with Arch Linux, there is no obligation to support any other distribution.

Offline

#5 2017-11-13 13:12:40

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 5,613

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

Keep in mind that i686 and ARM are very different architectures, this change doesn't impact arm 32-bit systems at all.

My personal preference is to start a package with x86_64, then wait for users with i686 to help test the package on their systems before adding i686 as architecture.


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

Offline

#6 2017-11-13 13:25:43

GordonGR
Member
From: Thessaloniki, Greece
Registered: 2011-11-07
Posts: 258

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

fsckd: Thank you for the split. I should had thought myself of making a new thread about it.

Trilby, fsckd, phw, Lonewolf: Thank you for your input. These were my thoughts too, but I wanted confirmation. I haven't had a 32-bit installation since 2011, so I cannot test any 32-bit build (and I doubt any of my packages' users do either, judging from the lack of answers when I ask them), but still I needed to know. Your answers clarify the issue, so I am marking this thread as solved.


Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU E3400 @ 2.60GHz, XFCE 4.12, x86_64. AURs.

“No one without the knowledge of geometry may enter.“ Plato.

Offline

#7 2017-11-14 22:17:58

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 7,030

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

Trilby wrote:

There was not some cultural upheaval such that we have a desire to intentionally ostracize users of 32 bit hardware.

Oh it definitely was. Those scum should go back to gentoo from whence they came wink

The mailing list discussion on this topic was surprisingly (to me) civil, with the majority of responses being "oh I've got 1 or 2 things lying around using 32-bit but don't mind me".

Since 32-bit is basically on the same level as Arch Linux ARM now though, I think the precedent set by ALARM would help. In fact now that I think about it some sort of makepkg.conf switch allowing the skipping of architecture checks would be a convenience function. Maybe we could use '-A' smile

Not sure how well the various pacuar/packer/yaourt etc. support that though.


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#8 2017-11-14 23:28:53

Trilby
Forum Fellow
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 17,449
Website

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

ngoonee wrote:

... allowing the skipping of architecture checks would be a convenience function. Maybe we could use '-A'

Given that the architecture of a given machine is known ahead of time and will not change, just use something like this if that is your goal:

alias makepkg='sed -i "s/^arch=.*/arch=(i686)/" PKGBUILD && /usr/bin/makepkg'

Last edited by Trilby (2017-11-14 23:30:20)


Resist the GNU world order.

Offline

#9 2017-11-15 01:48:14

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 7,030

Re: [Solved] About i686 AUR packages

Trilby wrote:
ngoonee wrote:

... allowing the skipping of architecture checks would be a convenience function. Maybe we could use '-A'

Given that the architecture of a given machine is known ahead of time and will not change, just use something like this if that is your goal:

alias makepkg='sed -i "s/^arch=.*/arch=(i686)/" PKGBUILD && /usr/bin/makepkg'

Actually makepkg already has that flag, so using an automatically modified PKGBUILD isn't necessary.


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB