[2012-07-21 10:15:55 +0200] SanskritFritz:
> Is there an official consensus about this question?
No.
> I was asked to
> include 'arm' to the architecture array in fish-shell-git. I have no
> problems with that, but want to conform to the general
> recommendations.
I would do it and think you sho
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:52:39PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>>
>> But that would simply add "arm" or "ppc" to the ARCH array. The point
>> is to know beforehand if the package works - currently I can know if a
>> package works or not
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:52:39PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>
> But that would simply add "arm" or "ppc" to the ARCH array. The point
> is to know beforehand if the package works - currently I can know if a
> package works or not in my arch (amd64) by looking at the PKGBUILD.
> That's t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-06-03 20:44, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:38:01AM +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:
>
>> What about a modded aur client, I could write a patch to about
>> any given aur helper within minutes that would add the arch to
>> the PKGBU
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:38:01AM +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:
> What about a modded aur client, I could write a patch to about any given aur
> helper within minutes that would add the arch to the PKGBUILD after download,
> which would simply add/enforce the desired arch.
Excuse my inability to ig
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:58:57PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> 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?
What about a modded aur client, I could write a p
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:56:40AM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote:
> > On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa 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
On 2 June 2012 11:21, Connor Behan wrote:
> On 01/06/12 08:17 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> Given that this question ("is arm/ppc allowed in AUR?") has had a bit
>> of mixed responses, can I expect a bit more of discussion on this, or
>> should I consider the "no" final? Thanks,
>
> I wouldn'
On 01/06/12 08:17 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> Given that this question ("is arm/ppc allowed in AUR?") has had a bit
> of mixed responses, can I expect a bit more of discussion on this, or
> should I consider the "no" final? Thanks,
I wouldn't consider the "no" final. If you put a PKGBUILD i
On 2012-06-01 03:17, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 01/06/12 02:31, Loui Chang wrote:
>> 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 wrote:
> When I first though about it, I wanted to say
Loui Chang wrote:
> > 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
On 01/06/12 02:31, Loui Chang wrote:
> 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 wrote:
When I first though about it, I wanted to say "why not", it doesn't hurt
the functioning of t
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 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.
> >
> >
On 2012-05-31 08:10, Phillip Smith wrote:
> On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa 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
> "unsuppor
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Phillip Smith wrote:
> 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.
I a
On 31 May 2012 17:38, Jelle van der Waa 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.
I
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
>>
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 th
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,
19 matches
Mail list logo
