On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:17 -0600 Dan McGee <dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 25/01/10 17:41, Jan de Groot wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 12:13 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >>> > >>> linux-api-headers-2.6.32.5-1 > >>> - convert to arch=any (built on x86_64, tested on i686) > [...] > > Good point. I had thought about this and decided that they we > > architecture independent on the architectures we support so went > > with arch=any. Should I revert that? > > A comment in the PKGBUILD would probably be nice even if you don't > revert it alluding to the above. That way anyone trying to do some abs > cross-compile could at least have something to go off of. However, > with that logic, making it not arch-independent would help them even > more... > > -Dan +1 for not arch-independent Community projects for different architectures are coming up all the time. Also, ARM is gaining a stronghold on netbooks, a perfect target for Arch. ARM might very well become a new official architecture in a few years, if it really takes of (the way I hope :)). Why introduce (subtle) stumbling blocks to save less than 1M on mirrors? Jinks
