"Eric Bélanger" <snowmaniscool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >> "Ionuț Bîru" <ibiru@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>On 01/27/2011 12:41 PM, Auguste Pop wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am not aware of the package until I saw it listed on the home >page >>>> of Archlinux today. Just out of curiosity, I skimmed the contents >of >>>> the package and find out that they are mainly html files. Shouldn't >>>it >>>> be "any" rather than i686/x86_64? Should I file a bug report or >this >>>> is just my ignorance of imagemagick? >>>> >>>> Thank you for your kind attention. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>> >>>is not a bug. is more a impossibility to split 'any' packages like >>>that. >>>makepkg supports such splits but our server scripts doesn't handle >them >>> >>>at all. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Ionuț >> >> Indeed, but can still create a separate 'any' package like we do with >some games. Just a split package won't work there. >> > >FTR, there used to be a seperate 'any' imagemagick-doc packge but I >just removed it because it was too much work and it was often >forgotten when other devs were rebuilding or updating imagemagick. >Plus, it's only 3MB. I see. Making it split package and disregarding 'any' seems fairly reasonable considering the size. I have some 100MB doc packages though so I have some separate 'any' packages.
