Difference between revisions of "Talk:32-bit package guidelines"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(File placement: clearing closed discussion)
(Package naming: clearing closed discussion)
(Tag: Replaced)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
The guidelines currently on this page will build {{ic|lib32-}} packages, but I really have no idea about building {{ic|-x32}} packages. If anyone who knows about {{ic|-x32}} could add a blurb, it would strengthen this proposal. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 
The guidelines currently on this page will build {{ic|lib32-}} packages, but I really have no idea about building {{ic|-x32}} packages. If anyone who knows about {{ic|-x32}} could add a blurb, it would strengthen this proposal. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 
== <s>Package naming</s> ==
 
 
Split packages are characterized by {{ic|pkgbase}}, not {{ic|pkgname}}. The {{ic|pkgbase}} name does not matter for ''package'' naming. The link [https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=-multilib both 32-bit and native versions] does not list split packages. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 10:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:I think what's happened is that few people have any use for the kind of "-multilib" packages I've described here, and as such there are none remaining in the AUR. There was a time (when x86_64 was relatively new) when this convention (however unofficial and undocumented) existed, but it is now (appropriately) out of date. You may dispute that, but I distinctly recall building such packages based on the packages of others I had found in the AUR (version 3). If there are no such packages in existence anymore, then there is no need to document this convention. I have to admit I didn't deeply look into the list of packages that AUR search returned, but having done so now I should point out one particular package, {{AUR|dosbox-multilib-patched}} which should probably be a "lib32-" package, and may be using this convention (incorrectly?).
 
 
:Also "package naming" as a section header doesn't explicitly refer to {{ic|pkgname}}, but I can see how it might be interpreted that way. All of the conventions I've described here are intended for {{ic|pkgbase}}; I was hoping I would not have to explicitly point that out (should be clear if someone also reads te PKGBUILD page) [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::This section ''should'' be intended for {{ic|pkgname}} as in all other related pages.
 
::If you intend this page to be moved to the main namespace, you should make sure that everything described here reflects the current conventions as agreed by the whole community. If you are not sure, I'd better ask somewhere. Personal preferences and controversial practices don't belong on a "package guidelines" page.
 
::-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:::I did not invent this; I learned it from other packagers PKGBUILDs. Not sure how I have failed to communicate that these are neither personal preferences nor controversial practices (there would have had to have been a discussion about it in its time in order for it to be controversial, but I am not aware of one), but rather a convention that appears to be out of date (and was never formalized to begin with). Again, if it is outdated I don't mind cutting it, it's here because at least at a time there was such a custom. This is part of the reason this page is needed: 32-bit packages are an increasingly obscure topic with lacking and outdated documentation.
 
 
:::I might go so far as to replace this section with a blurb that explicitly states the old practice is defunct, and that "-multilib" is to be used exclusively for the dual-architecture toolchain packages you described. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 01:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::::It does not matter who invented it, the point is that the practice did not get established enough in the community to be called a ''guideline''. I don't see a point in documenting outdated things - simply remove it. As for the need of this page: its non-existence since the early history clearly indicates how (un)popular the topic is. The need for guidelines or wiki pages in general is driven by popularity, not by obscurity of the topic. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 
:::::This content of this page does exist though, it's just inappropriately placed as a section of the [[makepkg]] page. Also, as both official [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&q=lib32&maintainer=&flagged= lib32-] and unofficial "-x32" packages continue to exist, their packaging methods need to be documented. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::::::It's not like all packaging methods for every possible package in the AUR should be documented in a set of ''guidelines''. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 16:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 
:::::::"lib32-" packages are available from [[Official repositories#multilib|[multilib]]], an official repository (see link above). That alone is sufficient cause to require documentation on their packaging. Furthermore, at one time I maintained [https://github.com/quequotion/mmug-qq my own repository of 32-bit packages], some of which were not available in {{ic|[multilib]}} and some of which were replacements for official packages with issues such as missing architecture-specific includes, misplaced or missing pkgconfig, and missing 32-bit executables, which prevented the official packages from being used as build dependencies, etc. This documentation is necessary as long as archlinux is distributing 32-bit packages. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
::::::::OK, fair enough. Thanks for putting it all together. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 08:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 
 
:::::::::Settled, so closed. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 13:56, 14 June 2019

-x32?

The guidelines currently on this page will build lib32- packages, but I really have no idea about building -x32 packages. If anyone who knows about -x32 could add a blurb, it would strengthen this proposal. quequotion (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)