On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Aaron Griffin<[email protected]> wrote: > 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>"
I'm going to disagree with this- my default was going to be "don't check" if left unset. However, I could go either way as long as both "auto" and "nocheck" are somehow accommodated. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
