On Fri, 18 May 2018 at 02:44:51, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Currently we hardcode the architectures the official repos historically > supported, which seems both inefficient because of hardcoding, and > simply wrong, because many packages support various ARM platforms too. > > If we were to say "only officially supported arches will be supported in > the AUR" we'd have to disable i686, which seems silly and arbitrarily > restrictive. Also there's better places to implement such a blacklist > (via die_commit in the main loop, via a config option to list supported > arches, would make much more sense in terms of logic). > > As for the metadata extraction itself, there's no reason to hardcode the > arches to check for at all. We can get this information too, from the > .SRCINFO itself. Detecting this dynamically is not incompatible with a > blacklist, should we ever decide to implement such a thing. > > Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <[email protected]> > --- > > Just in case I wasn't obvious, I don't support adding a real blacklist > any more than the currently existing accidental sort of kind of one... > > But currently we're really inconsistent in how we treat e.g. > source_aarch64 which just quietly disappears and should really be shown > in the web interface. This is extremely valid in -bin packages. > > It looks like we weren't hardcoding this anywhere but there anyway, the > database/frontend don't seem to care what the value of arch is before > displaying it. So, no database changes, and less bytes of code. > > This is a really long commit message and annotation for a two-word > change... > > aurweb/git/update.py | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > [...]
Merged into pu, thanks!
