David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. wrote:
Listmates,
I'm building a local repo for boxes to update via the lan instead of
redownloading. I have my repo on my local server as:
You might want to look into this: http://xyne.archlinux.ca/info/pkgd
arch/
x86/
x86_64/
I have moved all files for my two x86_64 boxes to the arch/x86_64 dir and I
am filtering with a script to eliminate dups by moving the lesser numbered
packages to arch/x86_64/oldpkgs. Testing the script before the actual move of
packages, I ran across this anomaly in some filenames: (script output) [1]
<snip>
ttf-isabella-1.003-3.pkg.tar.gz -> oldpkgs
ttf-isabella-1.003-4-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
tunepimp-0.5.3-5.pkg.tar.gz -> oldpkgs
tunepimp-0.5.3-6-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
tzdata-2009f-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz -> oldpkgs
tzdata-2009g-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
unrar-3.8.5-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz -> oldpkgs
unrar-3.9.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.gz
<snip>
As shown above, there are multiple packages where the earlier version did
*not* contain the x86_64 designation where the current package now does. Are
these the same packages? If so why did earlier packages not have the x86_64
and when was the architecture added? Are all packages now going to have the
architecture specified?
Pre pacman-3.0 (I think), the architecture was not included in the file
name. Anything in the [community] repo still will not have the
architecture name as the [community] repo scripts do not handle it yet.
Allan
