On Thu 31 May 2012 09:56 -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote: > > On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa <je...@vdwaa.nl> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I thought the same, but after thinking more... While AUR is > > "unsupported", the project/site is still an official item. > > > > In my mind, it doesn't make sense to include unofficial platforms in > > official infrastructure, supported or not. > > > > We don't encourage documentation of other platforms in our wiki (do we?) > > While I'd wish this weren't true, your argument does make perfect sense, > so I guess it's best to keep AUR clear of these architectures.
I'm not a TU, but I actually think allowing other architectures in the PKGBUILDs is a Good Thing. The AUR is supposed be be a place of less-restricted user contribution - where packages (and/or architectures?) that developers are not interested in can be submitted. > It may be a bit of chicken-and-egg, though. The ppc/arm userbase might > grow if arch is seen stable enough and seems to have sufficient > packages, possibly making it worth being supported, but the lack of > infrastructure won't make that so possible. Yes, I also see it as a way of welcoming the ppc/arm/etc userbase into the main Arch collective, and adding their technological distinctiveness to our own.