On July 2, 2025 3:25:22 PM EDT, Levente Polyak <anthr...@archlinux.org> wrote:
>On 7/2/25 6:29 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 12:20:49 +0200 Christian Hesse <l...@eworm.de> said:
>>
>>> Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> on Wed, 2025/07/02 11:00:
>>>> Next releases of anything I maintain shall be going arch=(any) as
>>>> everything I maintain is fully portable anyway and always has been. My AUR
>>>> pkgs already have a host of arch's in them and i'll simplify to any. No
>>>> other changes needed.
>>>
>>> That's probable a bad idea. :-o
>>>
>>> That would set the arch "any" in the package metadata, which is not true if
>>> it contains architecture dependent data, like elf files.
>>
>> yeah. i just found out - i never did that before. i was assuming it'd use
>> $ARCH ... what's would be the way to go for "this will work on any arch -
>> it's
>> portable" without having to just list every arch i can think of?
>>
>>> --
>>> main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
>>> "CX:;",b;for(a/* Best regards my address: */=0;b=c[a++];)
>>> putchar(b-1/(/* Chris cc -ox -xc - && ./x */b/42*2-3)*42);}
>>
>>
>
>makepkg/pacman does not support a meta architecture like `all`. Packages will
>need to explicitly opt for all supported architectures we expect to ship in
>Arch Linux.
>Please keep the arch=() array limited to architectures we actually do handle
>officially, which currently is only x86_64 :)
>
>Cheers,
>Levente
That may be something worth considering in the future. As much as I dislike
Fedora's package format, their decision to make architectures opt-*out* instead
of opt-in has apparently reduced the friction of adding new architectures quite
a bit. We should consider adopting that approach.
Best,
Campbell
