On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Eric Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Anders Bergh wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ronald van Haren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> so how would you know in that case if someone uploads a new package >>> only for one architecture but the package is buildable for both >>> architectures? >>> >>> Ronald >>> >> >> Don't know, but TUs uploading new packages should try to build them on >> 64-bit as well (if it is possible). > > I believe (and hope) that TU who have access to a x86_64 machine already > provide x86_64 versions of their packages. BTW, gcarrier has a build machine > for x86_64. Ask him for access if you don't have a x86_64 machine.
Yes, definitely. I meant that all TUs should have access to a x86_64 machine, which means all new community packages will have arch=(i686 x86_64) if they can be built on both architectures. If a TU only sets arch=(i686) one should assume it doesn't work on x86_64. >> Some of these packages will never >> build on 64-bit, or be usable on 32-bit. Perhaps something like >> arch=(i686 !x86_64) would be useful... > > In this case, !x86_64 will be taken as an achitecture. A comment after the > arch field would be more aproppriate, e.g.: > arch=(i686) # Binary blob, doesn't work on x86_64 > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > Yes, it was a suggestion for how some packages (such as lib32-*) could be ignored on that page. -- Anders
