--- Karolina Lindqvist <karolina.lindqvist@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Actually, I added i586 when I did it the last time,
> one year ago, with the
> result that it was practically hopeless to diff with
> the original, when doing
> an update with "abs". So this time, I just ignore to
> put in i586, making it
> easier with upgrades.
Yes, you will have to do this search-and-replace
i686->i586 after every time you update abs.
> I still question the whole purpose of the arch= tag,
> if it means that it
> is "certified" by the developers. All files
> downloaded with abs are certified
> by the developers, so what is the big deal? And
> makeworld does not exclude
> building packages that are not for the architecture.
The point is that the developers don't want to get a
bunch of bug reports for things that might be
i586-specific problems. They are saying "we've tested
the package that is built using this PKGBUILD on i686
and/or x86_64, and if you have a problem with it let
us know, but if you use this PKGBUILD to build for
some other architecture, you're on your own". Though I
agree that makepkg just aborting on i586 is kind of
pointless, just a nice big warning would suffice. From
previous posts I assume this will change in future
versions of makepkg.
> And then, what does it mean for AUR, if everyone are
> forced to put the tag in,
> but now not meaning that it is certified by the
> developers anymore?
I assume AUR maintainers are free to put whatever they
like in the arch tag -- it's up to them what
architectures they want to support for their specific
package.
> I think a better usage would be that the package is
> tried and works and is
> meaningful on that architecture.
Well, that's exactly what it means now. But the devs
don't want to go to the work of doing that on i586,
because arch is an i686/x86_64-optimized distribution,
and has never claimed to be "tried and working" on
i586.
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.ca
