Thanks for the answer, in the end I split it out to a separate package. I do not have a system with aarch64 so I could not test it, and someone specifically asked for it. (in the end that person tested it for me)
If it can be built from source to aarch64 (what I don't know atm) it needs to be a separate package anyway. And I guess I'll have to set up a raspberry pi with aarch64 or something. On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, 01:50 Eli Schwartz via aur-general, < [email protected]> wrote: > On 10/5/19 7:48 AM, Attila Greguss via aur-general wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a PKGBUILD Here > > <https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=dotnet-core-2.1> > > > > Is there a way to enable the commented out package in the PKGBUILD > without > > said package blocking the installation of the other packages on the > > architecture it does not support? > > I'm OK with splitting it out, but I thought I ask first if because I > don't > > know the capabilities of PKGBUILD/makepkg. > > > > Some (not necessary) context: > > Package is for dotnet, and the source archive includes dotnet-host, > > dotnet-runtime, aspnet-runtime, dotnet-sdk for x86_64 and armv7h. For > > aarch64 it does NOT contain aspnet-runtime files, but all the rest. > > Yes, and it is also repackaging someone else's prebuilt binaries instead > of building from source (and the source code is available). Is there a > reason the package name does not include the word "bin" in it? > > Also generally why not just build from source, exactly like the > unversioned package in [community]? > > > I tried to specify the architecture list for aspnet-runtime in the > > PKGBUILD, but if someone tries to install any of the other packages on > > aarch64 it will fail. (see commented out part in file) > > Well, no it won't fail. What will fail is trying to build it in the > first place, since adding a split package whose list of arches is > smaller than the global arch=() list is a broken concept. The first > thing makepkg will do is check if all packages contain valid metadata, > and on aarch64 it will refuse to even try to build anything at all, > because it can tell it won't work. > > Building from source would fix this, since I assume the source code > supports aarch64? > > ... > > I would like to know how this was ever a problem. Did you not try to > build the package for aarch64 before uploading it? > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > >
