On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Dan McGee<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Steven Blatchford<[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> I'm sure this has been brought up in the pacman ML but I couldn't find >> it quickly. Do you think it would be useful to check the architecture >> of the machine (eg the output of 'uname -m') against the binary pacman >> is downloading? Twice I've sync'd the file /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist via >> unison to my slicehost server from my i686 network. The latest bash4.0 >> upgrade hurt... like there were tears... and henceforth it's now known >> in my house as "Grumpy Sunday". >> >> I have no trouble creating a wrapper script, I just thought I'd toss it >> out there. >> >> Lastly, if you suggest I go the wrapper script method, besides trying to >> parse the mirrorlist file, is there a nice way to get the architecture >> of a file from pacman before it downloads it? /installs it? > > Would you mind sending this to the pacman-dev ML or filing a bug > report instead next time? Unfortunately it will just get buried in my > personal email inbox. I'm copying the list on this response. > > With that said, I think we could perhaps take some precautions for > such things, such as adding a pacman.conf option to verify the > architecture. Something such as: > > RootDir = / > DBPath = /var/lib/pacman > Architecture = x86_64 > > Where the accepted options would be something like: > > Architecture = { i686, x86_64, ppc, etc... } or "auto", which would > make a uname system call, check the machine[] field, and use that > instead of a value being hardcoded? > > What does the rest of the list think? This wouldn't be too hard, and > of course a package coded with architecture "any" would get a free > pass.
Yeah, I definitely don't think using "uname -m" by default should be done - what happens if I booted and i686 livecd to I could recover something borked on my x86_64 machine? "Can't install package, wrong arch" Grrr. Sure, you could use "linux64" in this case, but if you're already chrooted to a live system that's nicely configured, this extra step shouldn't be needed. I don't think "auto" should be a setting though - I think it should only be used if Architecture isn't found in pacman.conf and should output a warning saying "Architecture not set in pacman.conf, using <blah>" _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
