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 <[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.
I agree, this is quite true, and I actually must agree that ppc/arm would be out-of-place because of this. >>>> >>>> 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?) I don't know if it's allowed, but I should point that this article exists in the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Install_Guide_on_a_PowerPC I don't think it should say "official". Or it should at least mention it's unsupported by arch, BTW. >>> >>> 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. I've seen people complaining that pacman can't install stuff from AUR too. We can't let out-of-place users become an impediment to move forward. > > As I have seen with for example archbang and archlinuxarm questions on > #archlinux. I've seen Ubuntu and Fedora users asking stuff in #debian. Stupid people will always be stupid, you can't stop that! The other reasons mentioned are valid (and I had actually backed down because of them), but I don't think this one should really have as much weight. > > >>> 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. >> > > 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, -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
