On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Andres P <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is one of those "seems like a good idea but why" patches. Yes, >> we'll save milliseconds in building a package, but what if someone has >> a legit reason for putting libraries or binaries in an 'any' package? >> I'm going to -1 this one. >> > But "any" means that there's no arch dependant code in the package?
No, it means the package is able to be installed on any architecture and work as intended. What if I had an "elf-demo" package that contained different ELF files from multiple architectures? Yes, contrived, but possible. > strip(1) can't take the debug symbols out of a .py last time I checked. > > Seems like there's no organization. :/ WTF? > Even namcap should throw an error if it finds an elf in an "-any" package. It does, and I wrote the damn rule. But that is not for makepkg to decide. http://projects.archlinux.org/namcap.git/commit/?id=a121258fc2be1df8f970e09cbff889241462e491 > > To think I was going to propose /libexec Seriously, your attitude is going to get you nowhere on this list. We appreciate your patches, but you can't throw a fit every time we say something negative. I don't even know what points you are trying to make or what agenda you are trying to push on a completely different topic. Address the issue your patch brings up, address the comments people give, but don't start spewing everything else, please. -Dan
