On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:25:59 +0200, Marcel Korpel wrote: >* Ralf Mardorf <[email protected]> (Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 >+0200): >> when using the AUR 4 search machine for "Name, Description" or "Name" >> and "Out of Date All", the keyword "lightscribe" does find "4l", but >> it doesn't find "lightscribe" and "lightscribe-labeler". > >The latter two are not in AUR4 yet, so package search doesn't find >them. 4l has lightscribe in its description.
When I searched for the packages they were in AUR 4, but the search engine didn't find them, that#s why I provided the links: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 21:08:00 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe/ >https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lightscribe-labeler/ >https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/4l/ ^^^^ AUR4 >> Assumed for AUR 3 PKGBUILDs were available for 32-bit and 64-bit >> architecture, there were requests to make those split PKGBUILDs one >> for both architectures, does it make sense to provide the PKGBUILDs >> for AUR 4 with dropped 64-bit architecture and to provide 32-bit >> architecture only? >> >> We could argue that it's better somebody maintains 32-bit PKGBUILDs >> only, instead of completely dropping software, OTOH Arch claims >> to support 32-bit and 64-bit architecture and it looks like a step >> backwards to provide 32-bit architecture and to drop the newer 64-bit >> architecture. > >You can (and should) use separate source arrays, nowadays, so what do >you mean by split packages? Will AUR 4 provide some PKGBUILDs only for 32-bit architecture and drop to continue providing those PKGBUILDs with multi-libs for 64-bit architecture too? Assumed the maintainers decide to drop 64-bit support?
