On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Dan McGee<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ah, I wasn't actually thinking about the ability to circumvent the check (why would you want to?) - could you explain when this would be useful? Most cases where uname != (what you want) are probably in a chroot and you have a pacman.conf there anyway. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
