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 <[email protected]> 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. >>> >>> In my mind, it doesn't make sense to include unofficial platforms in >>> official infrastructure, supported or not. >>> >>> We don't encourage documentation of other platforms in our wiki (do we?) >> >> While I'd wish this weren't true, your argument does make perfect sense, >> so I guess it's best to keep AUR clear of these architectures. > > I'm not a TU, but I actually think allowing other architectures in the > PKGBUILDs is a Good Thing. The AUR is supposed be be a place of > less-restricted user contribution - where packages (and/or > architectures?) that developers are not interested in can be submitted. > Sure it's not a problem or against the rules. I'm just afraid that ARM users will use the AUR and then complain that stuff doesn't work.
As I have seen with for example archbang and archlinuxarm questions on #archlinux. >> 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 see it as a way of welcoming the ppc/arm/etc userbase into > the main Arch collective, and adding their technological distinctiveness > to our own. > -- Jelle van der Waa
