On 2016-12-13 12:05, NicoHood wrote: > I agree to get rid of i686. However I want to refer to the discussion > about stronger hashes in PKGBUILDs. If we use an automatic build > solution that builds the packages for 32bit, we need to make sure that > we have gpg signed sources or strong hashes. > > GPG signatures would be best, but if they are not available we must rely > on the hash. To ensure that the build server downloads the exact same > source as the maintainer (who checked and tested the source) we must use > strong hashes. (This already applies for the ALARM project).
Please cut it. The subject is pretty clear: getting rid (or not) of x86. Keep this pointless discussion on hashes outside this thread. Thanks in advance. > Now that some packages still need some arch dependent modification I > would still add those, if possible. It would mean our PKGBUILD is > compatible with 32bit, but does not guarantee it. I personally would > also love to do this for ARM, as it is just a really small change > sometimes to add support for a specific arch. It's not going to happen. I don't have 32bit, I don't run Arch on any ARM board. I have no way to review if such compatibility change makes any sense. If ever, we will just give people responsible for ARM port access to SVN/Git, but just as with my previous comment, this seems unrelated for now. Bartłomiej
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
