>A repository for "any" doesn't make sense. It would mean that there's not the potential for duplication between the various architectures' repos. I *am* assuming they'd use symlinks for the 'any' packages on the mirrors?
On 24/09/2014, Giovanni Santini <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, it can be used for packages which uses python or similar; python has > to be 32bit or 64bit, apps written in python has not. > In general, packages with an interpreter or a VM needs no architecture > specific package, as its dependency is the interpeter/VM, which is arch > dependant. > >> Il 24/set/2014 06:50 Ralf Mardorf <[email protected]> ha >> scritto: >> > >> > On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 09:28 +0800, Fernando Gilberto Pereira da Silva >> > wrote: >> > > Since 'any' is the architecture of the package, why isn't there a >> > > folder called 'any' in the repo? I can see only 'i686' and 'x86_64' in >> > > >> > > repo 'core', 'extra' and 'community', and all of the >> > > 'any'-architecture packages are put into both 'i686' and 'x86_64' >> > > folders. >> > >> > People might use 32-bit architecture or 64-bit architecture, there isn't >> > >> > an "any" architecture. The "any" only refers to the content of a >> > package. The content isn't compiled to work on 32-bit or 64-bit >> > architecture, e.g. a dash script, so it can be used on both >> > architectures, ergo a package that can be used for "any" architecture, >> > needs to be put to the 32-bit and to the 64-bit architecture repository. >> > >> > A repository for "any" doesn't make sense. > -- David Phillips GPG Key 0x7BF3D17D0884BF5B Fingerprint 2426 235A 7831 AA2F 56AF 4BC0 7BF3 D17D 0884 BF5B
