On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:37:17 -0600
Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org>
> wrote:
> > On 25/01/10 17:41, Jan de Groot wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 12:13 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>
> >>> linux-api-headers-2.6.32.5-1
> >>> - convert to arch=any (built on x86_64, tested on i686)
> [...]
> > Good point. I had thought about this and decided that they we
> > architecture independent on the architectures we support so went
> > with arch=any. Should I revert that?
>
> A comment in the PKGBUILD would probably be nice even if you don't
> revert it alluding to the above. That way anyone trying to do some abs
> cross-compile could at least have something to go off of. However,
> with that logic, making it not arch-independent would help them even
> more...
>
> -Dan
+1 for not arch-independent
Community projects for different architectures are coming up all the
time. Also, ARM is gaining a stronghold on netbooks, a perfect target
for Arch. ARM might very well become a new official architecture in a
few years, if it really takes of (the way I hope :)).
Why introduce (subtle) stumbling blocks to save less than 1M on mirrors?
Jinks
