Arch Linux User Repository Requires Packages To Support x86_64: No ARM-Only Software

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dragon321
    Senior Member
    • May 2016
    • 874

    #41
    Seems like terrible decision but I guess it makes sense. After all Arch doesn't support anything other than x86_64 so it makes sense they don't want non x86_64 packages in user repository.

    Comment

    • muncrief
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2016
      • 866

      #42
      Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
      Seems like terrible decision but I guess it makes sense. After all Arch doesn't support anything other than x86_64 so it makes sense they don't want non x86_64 packages in user repository.
      I agree. Arch is an x86_64 distro, so I imagine they're trying to keep the AUR as clean as possible since it's not really structured to support other architectures.

      On the other hand, though I think ARM and other semi-RISC processors are over hyped and wouldn't use them myself, many disagree, and the fact is that RISC type processors aren't going away.

      So I'd recommend that the Arch devs make some accommodation for RISC AUR pacages in the future. Of course organizations like https://archlinuxarm.org could take on the project themselves and create their own AUR, or people could just host their own packages, but having a one stop location like the AUR certainly makes things simpler.

      It seems that the goal of making the Arch AUR compatible with popular architectures could only advance Arch, and if the RISC community is willing to work together with the Arch devs then I don't think it would be too much of a drain on them to restructure the AUR to allow RISC packages. Arch could still make it clear that x86_64 is the only officially supported architecture, but allowing RISC packages would present a more user friendly face, and foster greater acceptance of Arch on RISC, instead of driving users to another distro.
      Last edited by muncrief; 08 January 2025, 07:05 PM.

      Comment

      • HEX0
        Phoronix Member
        • Jan 2020
        • 92

        #43
        I don't understand the current hype around ARM. Historically ARM has always been the e-waste ISA with FOSS hostile vendors and mostly proprietary ecosystem with zero standards. No UEFI, no ACPI, no sane boot process, unless it's one of those ARM server ready boards. It's all garbage.


        And why the hype for RISC-V? Is there anything to prevent vendors to do the same shit? Proprietary drivers, fucking device trees and special sauce firmware.

        I mean what exactly you as the end user are getting by replacing AMD64 with any of that TODAY (not in 10 years)?

        And Qualcomm does not exactly have a good track record. I would hope Intel or AMD comes to the rescue and develop sane platforms for either ARM or RISC-V, where you can boot just about any OS on any hardware.
        Last edited by HEX0; 08 January 2025, 10:31 PM.

        Comment

        • Sonadow
          Senior Member
          • Jun 2009
          • 2280

          #44
          Originally posted by HEX0 View Post
          I don't understand the current hype around ARM. Historically ARM has always been the e-waste ISA with FOSS hostile vendors and mostly proprietary ecosystem with zero standards. No UEFI, no ACPI, no sane boot process, unless it's one of those ARM server ready boards. It's all garbage.


          And why the hype for RISC-V? Is there anything to prevent vendors to do the same shit? Proprietary drivers, fucking device trees and special sauce firmware.

          I mean what exactly you as the end user are getting by replacing AMD64 with any of that TODAY (not in 10 years)?

          And Qualcomm does not exactly have a good track record. I would hope Intel or AMD comes to the rescue and develop sane platforms for either ARM or RISC-V, where you can boot just about any OS on any hardware.
          If you want sane generic platforms, don't ever hope for anything on ARM and RISC-V. RISC-V's platform specifications is practically a copy of ARM. With all mention of accursed device trees.

          Microsoft with all its clout and resources could not get Qualcomm to provide a sane ACPI-compliant platform for Windows 11.

          The fact Linux people actually *think* an ARM or RISC-V computer using devices trees that 1) completely cannot boot another generic OS / kernel image, or 2) boots a generic OS / kernel image with almost nothing working at all device device trees are fucking appliance-specific and 3) permanently locked to one verndor-supplied kernel or OS version for the hardware's entire lifespan just because "device trees are cleaner" is preferable to having one buggy but standardised firmware and initialization routine that is at least functional for almost all generic systems that use it and does not require embedding device-specific bits into an OS or kernel image just to get it to boot shows just how fucked up their thinking is.

          These same people are so deluded into thinking if ARM or RISC-V wins the ISA and platform wars for the future, we will all have open platforms that we can load any OS or kernel we want into and everything is fine in lalaland. Total bollocks. All we will have is the same shitfest that plagues ARM smartphones and ARM / RISC-V SBCs and dev kits. If ARM wins, the desktop, laptop and client computing landscape is not going to shift to Linux on ARM computers. It will shift to Windows on Qualcomm ARM SoCs and macOS on Apple Silicon, full stop, with Linux being relegated to VMs on macOS or WSL/WSL2 on Windows
          Last edited by Sonadow; 09 January 2025, 12:17 AM.

          Comment

          • Phoronos
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2024
            • 170

            #45
            Arch only supports x86_64 ? Their choice. Don't use it if you need arm or risc-v.

            Comment

            • Phoronos
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2024
              • 170

              #46
              PS : something has changed in the forum ? There is no more the "LIKE" button ?

              Comment

              • justinkb
                Senior Member
                • Apr 2009
                • 151

                #47
                Of course, they are in the right, since they are hosting the infrastructure, but this does seem incredibly petty and pointless. I bet the aarch64-related git transfer traffic is not even noticable.

                Comment

                • mcilloni
                  Junior Member
                  • Feb 2015
                  • 12

                  #48
                  Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

                  no, sadly if you want to cross compile you need to use distcc. I wish it did though, cross compiling for arm or riscv is a pain.
                  No, you can cross compile ARM packages from x86 to ARM (and viceversa). You just need a sysroot (the generic ALARM AArch64 image suffices), a cross compiler (either stock clang or a specific build of GCC like the one in the repos) and a custom makepkg.conf. That's it.

                  Distcc is for distributed compilation, not necessarily cross compiling btw.

                  Comment

                  • Estranged1906
                    Senior Member
                    • Dec 2022
                    • 304

                    #49
                    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

                    If you want sane generic platforms, don't ever hope for anything on ARM and RISC-V. RISC-V's platform specifications is practically a copy of ARM. With all mention of accursed device trees.

                    Microsoft with all its clout and resources could not get Qualcomm to provide a sane ACPI-compliant platform for Windows 11.

                    The fact Linux people actually *think* an ARM or RISC-V computer using devices trees that 1) completely cannot boot another generic OS / kernel image, or 2) boots a generic OS / kernel image with almost nothing working at all device device trees are fucking appliance-specific and 3) permanently locked to one verndor-supplied kernel or OS version for the hardware's entire lifespan just because "device trees are cleaner" is preferable to having one buggy but standardised firmware and initialization routine that is at least functional for almost all generic systems that use it and does not require embedding device-specific bits into an OS or kernel image just to get it to boot shows just how fucked up their thinking is.

                    These same people are so deluded into thinking if ARM or RISC-V wins the ISA and platform wars for the future, we will all have open platforms that we can load any OS or kernel we want into and everything is fine in lalaland. Total bollocks. All we will have is the same shitfest that plagues ARM smartphones and ARM / RISC-V SBCs and dev kits. If ARM wins, the desktop, laptop and client computing landscape is not going to shift to Linux on ARM computers. It will shift to Windows on Qualcomm ARM SoCs and macOS on Apple Silicon, full stop, with Linux being relegated to VMs on macOS or WSL/WSL2 on Windows
                    Hear, hear. I'm just quoting you because Michael removed the Like button and I want to smash it so hard after reading this.

                    Comment

                    • Espionage724
                      Senior Member
                      • Sep 2024
                      • 383

                      #50
                      Originally posted by jeisom View Post

                      It is Arch based, but isn't part of Arch. Like calling Ubuntu, Debian.
                      How do they get away with straight-up Arch branding while not being a part of Arch?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X