Originally posted by Espionage724
View Post
Arch Linux User Repository Requires Packages To Support x86_64: No ARM-Only Software
Collapse
X
-
Why are y'all still so up in arms about this? Arch only officially supports x86_64. The AUR is focused on Arch. There shouldn't be an expectation of the AUR to allow anything other than what would work on officially supported architectures.
While it would be nice for them to allow things not supporting x86_64, they don't have to allow packages for third-party distros or any other unofficial builds.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostI'm aware, but why should these other distros have their own AUR when they can just make a repo?
The AUR exists out of convenience, not necessity. If more people contribute, it generally becomes better.
I would argue the AUR as it is already qualifies as that - the whole point of the AUR is an easy source of 3rd party software that the Arch maintainers aren't held responsible for maintaining. There's a lot of crap packages on the AUR and even stuff that may be legally questionable, but that's not the Arch dev's problem. So, why should it matter if there are other architectures on there?
I really don't see why those are the only options. pkgbuild files have always had a line for architecture so if the main Arch devs were so keen on excluding non-x86-64 then they'd remove that as a field. Again: the whole point of the AUR is to absolve the main Arch devs of responsibility.
"Oh, you bricked your system because you installed a kernel from the AUR? Not my problem"
"You got ransomware when you installed that sketchy AUR package? Sucks to be you"
"The package won't build correctly? Contact the maintainer, not me"
All of these are valid things Arch maintainers/devs can say in response to bad AUR packages. These are things that can happen from AUR packages built for vanilla Arch on x86-64 CPUs. Look at the home page for the AUR:
"DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk."
So, you have a resource with known bad packages for the original distro and there's not always an obvious way of knowing this, but somehow installing a package obviously meant for another architecture is polluting the system, when all it takes is a single field to filter such packages?
This is one of the rare situations where you can have your cake and eat it too. I don't think having a filter for architecture is too much to ask and it's definitely not some gateway into adding responsibility to the core devs. ALARM has been a 3rd party project and always will be; I don't see how filtering the AUR would change this.
EDIT:
In the AUR search, imagine if the "out of date" filter field was missing. Suddenly, it gets to be a lot harder to identify AUR packages that are properly maintained or still relevant. It's hardly adding any complexity but it makes an immense difference in finding what you actually want. Since the AUR is designed for vanilla Arch, they can have the architecture field default to "x86-64" (which would also identify packages that work for all architectures).
Last edited by skeevy420; 08 January 2025, 02:14 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostThe same reason that Arch has the AUR -- their devs don't want to maintain some random package that some random person wants.
It's not unheard of for a distro to use another distro's repos but they have additional repos of their own.
Because the distribution itself doesn't support those architectures. That's why. There is no greater reason.
I'm sure there are other options, but staying as-is leads to this argument here where you're going "Just because it can do it means that it should." and I'm going "Just because it can do it doesn't mean that it should."
No, it's not . . . and I'm a bigger guy that just bought some cake flour. So what that they have a filter that can distinguish between source, no arch, binary, etc or that the filter can be expanded? They're allowed to limit their platform to the formats that they support.
Also, how hard do you think it is to check a text file? Because that's what a pkgbuild is. It has a dedicated section for architecture:
They even mention armv7 and aarch64 ffs... This is the official wiki, not the ALARM one.
Again - what's the point of keeping it if the core devs have no intention on using anything but x86-64?
The fuck? Imagine La La Land making things harder is what you're going with? I tried Imagination. It lead to a cooperative where various Arch-based distributions could come together and solve this problem instead of forcing Arch to solve their moocher problem. To me, ALARM, CachyOS, Manjaro, ALHP, all the Arch-based distributions -- they all might as well be some form of Rocky Alma Mooch if they're willing to dump their AUR issues onto Arch; to let Arch just add some fields here and there to accommodate Not Arch.
Your imagination is lacking. I thought you were more reasonable than this.Last edited by schmidtbag; 08 January 2025, 03:17 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostThey even mention armv7 and aarch64 ffs... This is the official wiki, not the ALARM one.
Again - what's the point of keeping it if the core devs have no intention on using anything but x86-64?
In other words:
HTML Code:# OK arch=('any') # OK arch=('x86_64' 'armv7') # Not OK arch=('armv7')
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by NekkoDroid View PostTo answer this: they don't have a problem with PKGBUILDs supporting other arches *in conjunction with* x86-64. They have a problem with PKGBUILDs that can't be installed/built for the only supported platform.
What I think is perfectly fair to remove are packages that needlessly exclude x86-64 support even if it would run fine on that anyway. Part of me wonders if any of such packages even exist.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by loganj View Postbut is it possible to build arm package on x86? if so they could allow the aur to build the package but don't allow to install it on x86.
well i actually like this decision. it makes sense considering that the officially arch is for x86-64 only.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by loganj View Postbut is it possible to build arm package on x86? if so they could allow the aur to build the package but don't allow to install it on x86.
well i actually like this decision. it makes sense considering that the officially arch is for x86-64 only.
Comment
-
Comment