And could it potentially lead to AUR packages uploaded without either 'i686' or 'x86_64' set?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > On 31/05/12 01:58, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've recently seen some comments in AUR, where a user points out that X >> package works well on powerpc/arm. >> >> I was wondering what's the general approach given to these architectures >> on AUR; since AUR is unsupported, is it ok to add these architectures to >> the PKGBUILD's arch array? >> >> If it is ok, is it *advised* to do so when apropriate? >> Supported architectures should see absolutely no change regarding these >> packages, and unsupported one will benefit from it. >> >> Again, being AUR unsupported anyway, I see nothing bad out of this, but >> I'd like to know the TU's stance on this, especially since I'm about to >> install archlinuxppc on one of my laptops. :) >> >> Cheers, thanks, >> > When I first though about it, I wanted to say "why not", it doesn't hurt > the functioning of the normal i686,x86_64 packages. > > Except there might be a few drawbacks: > * Become a place where ARM/PPC/* will look for support > * ARM/PPC/* Folks might want to add patches specific for their > architecture to AUR packages. > > > -- > Jelle van der Waa