Hi @felixonmars, thank you for your feedback. Other AUR Package Maintainers / Developers like @muflone have asserted that packages on AUR should work with x86_64. Also there's a statement to that effect in Arch package guidelines, linked to by AUR submission guidelines, and the latter states that the former shall be applicable in whole for AUR packages as well.
Like I said, and what @jelly have also agreed with, it seems there is room for improvement with respect to the AUR package submission / hosting rules. I myself also don't oppose ARM packages, but their existence is not supported well by current AURweb, which AFAIK does not support architecture-specific dependency lookup in its webrequest interface, nor does AURweb itself. Wish the best, Marcell (MarsSeed) On 15 November 2023 16:27:53 GMT+01:00, Felix Yan <felixonm...@archlinux.org> wrote: >On 11/15/23 16:21, Marcell Meszaros wrote: >> 'armcl' stands for ARM ComputeLibrary. For using ARM-based SoC's and their >> GPU component for mass parallellized, floating point heavy computation. >> >> Which clearly won't work with the x86 architecture. >> >> How is this just irrelevant and baseless spam? > >The AUR submission guidelines didn't really blacklist packages for ARM. > >Your suggestion about submitting the packages to Arch Linux ARM isn't really >an alternative because they don't have an equivalent platform like AUR. I >believe that witch-hunting useful ARM-only packages and forcing maintainers to >go away sharing elsewhere does more harm than good to the community. > >Arch may gain more platform support in the future, and how would that be >possible without more users involving? AUR was the reason why I started >contributing in Arch and I am really disappointed that the current situation >is driving contributors away. >
