On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:12:25PM +0200, Thomas Wolff wrote: >Am 11.08.2013 19:49, schrieb marco atzeri: >> Il 8/11/2013 7:02 PM, Thomas Wolff ha scritto: >>> Please upload the updated packages for algol68g (both 32 and 64 bit): >>> >>> cd algol68g >>> wget http://towo.net/algol68g/algol68g-2.7-0-src.tar.bz2 >>> wget http://towo.net/algol68g/algol68g-2.7-0-`uname -m`.tar.bz2 >>> >>> Thank you >>> Thomas Wolff >> >> you can not assume that >> uname -m >> >> is providing anything useful. >uname -m works on every system I've tried (unlike uname -p, uname -i). >Very useful (e.g. in PATH=$HOME/bin/`uname`.`uname -m`:$PATH).
It may be useful in your path. It is not useful when downloading since uname -m returns "i686" on 32-bit Cygwin and Cygwin is currently using "x86" to denote 32-bit. And, you shouldn't be inventing a convention of adding the architecture to your packages. upset won't know what to do with that. >> Moreover we are not using the architecture on the binary file. >I think it is really not a good idea to have the same name for archives >of different packages. No other systems I know does this. Just to kill two birds with one stone: http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/18/Fedora/x86_64/os/Packages/a/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.10.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/18/Fedora/i386/os/Packages/a/abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.0.10.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm >I had raised this issue well in time >(http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-04/msg00319.html) with some >initially positive responses (including yours) but unfortunately no >further discussion. >My upload request was a feable attempt to foster this discussion again... So by asking someone to upload a package using a technique that wouldn't work, but, if it had, would have ended up not actually working with the Cygwin distribution, you hoped to win people to your side? I'm not against the idea of adding an arch keyword to package tar balls but you've chosen the wrong way to go about arguing that point. cgf
