On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 11:10 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 3/3/21 11:03 am, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote: > > I wonder, might this be an interesting time to reintroduce multiple > > architectures? > > > > We used to offer i686 and x86_64. > > > > Maybe now we could offer x86_64, x86_64-v2, and x86_64-v3. Or go right > > to -v4. > > > > That is a possibility that has been discussed over the years. It was > previously decided that we needed other architecture builds to be > automated, and thus automated package signing. This becomes a > possibility once we manage to sign databases (which will hit a decade of > pacman support in October!). > > Allan
Is it possible to get pacman to allow us to enable multiple architectures at once and prioritize one of them? This way we could just do x86_64 and the maintainer could opt-in into x86_64-* if it makes sense for the package. This would not introduce new effort to maintainers and would solve the issue quite nicely IMO. Cheers, Filipe Laíns
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
