2014-11-21 12:39 GMT-03:00 Jesse McClure jmccl...@cns.umass.edu:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Marcel Korpel wrote:
That said, I wonder why Arch Linux ARM, which *is* a different project,
doesn't provide its own AUR? Wouldn't that be a solution for ARM-only
packages?
This was
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Justin Dray jus...@dray.be wrote:
Good question. One of my packages got deleted last year because it was arm
only. I no longer used any arm systems, and was just maintaining it, so I
didn't bother chasing it up. But I'm also interested in the answer to that.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM, LoneVVolf lonew...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Martti,
the problem is not assembly in the source code, , but the fact that all
compilers deliver machine-specific code .
compile a C program on an arm processor, try to run the binary on a x86
processor.
It will fail
* David Phillips dbphillip...@gmail.com (Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:41:14
+1300):
I think ARM-only packages should be tolerated on the AUR, simply
because AUR is the place where people look for PKGBUILDs.
That is actually a fair point, and I agree with you. But we do have to
keep in mind that
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Marcel Korpel wrote:
That said, I wonder why Arch Linux ARM, which *is* a different project,
doesn't provide its own AUR? Wouldn't that be a solution for ARM-only
packages?
This was my first thought. There isn't a reason for arm-only packages
to be in
Through searching, I've found discussions about people adding
unsupported architectures (specifically arm and ppc) to their current
i686/x86_64 PKGBUILDs. Nobody has a problem with that (I don't,
either). What I haven't found is any discussion about packages that are
*exclusively* for one of these
Good question. One of my packages got deleted last year because it was arm
only. I no longer used any arm systems, and was just maintaining it, so I
didn't bother chasing it up. But I'm also interested in the answer to that.
Regards,
Justin Dray
E: jus...@dray.be
M: 0433348284
The wiki page on PKGBUILDs [1] gives me the strong impression it *has*
to be at least i686 and/or x86_64. To quote it:
Currently, it [the arch field] should contain i686 and/or x86_64
It goes on to mention that the 'any' pseudo-architecture can be used
for platform independent packages. So in
