I myself feel that where the arch=(any) packages are different, they are
probably different for a reason and would suggest that the build
architecture take priority; for they are most likely to have the best
support for that architecture family.
I guess:
1) The tar.xz files have the architecture already in the name.
2) These files don't have to be downloaded or stored more than once.
3) Parabola devs choose which arch=(any) package makes it into parabola.
The last point is important, devs can pick and choose which individual
arch=(any) package comes from say, arch32 or archarm, or arch x86_64 or
wherever. (Though one would obviously hope that arch=(any) packages run
on all architectures).
There is pretty much no need for any fixed rules about the upstream
origin of the package either, and so no need for an overall conversation
about which upstream source should be prioritized. Much better to assess
arch=(any) packages on a case-by-case basis instead, and make sure by
hand that there aren't conflict duplicates from different upstream
providers. If a discussion has to be had about the upstream source for
an individual package, then so be it.
Therefore it probably makes sense to lump them all into a single package
cache. And there is probably little point in having duplicate arch=(any)
packages, mainly because:
1) You'd have to download lots more
2) You'd have to host more code
3) But finally and most importantly: The whole concept of the tag
"arch=(any)" would become completely flawed
Maybe some day someone will write some code to address this issue.
Josh
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.parabola.nu
https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
