Talk:32-bit package guidelines

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 13:56, 14 June 2019 by Quequotion (talk | contribs) (File placement: clearing closed discussion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)

Package naming

Split packages are characterized by pkgbase, not pkgname. The pkgbase name does not matter for package naming. The link both 32-bit and native versions does not list split packages. -- 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was relatively new) when this convention (however unofficial and undocumented) existed, but it is now (appropriately) out of date.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, dosbox-multilib-patchedAUR 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 pkgname, but I can see how it might be interpreted that way. All of the conventions I've described here are intended for pkgbase; I was hoping I would not have to explicitly point that out (should be clear if someone also reads te PKGBUILD page) quequotion (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This section should be intended for 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.
-- 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. 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. -- 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 lib32- and unofficial "-x32" packages continue to exist, their packaging methods need to be documented. 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. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"lib32-" packages are available from [multilib], an official repository (see link above). That alone is sufficient cause to require documentation on their packaging. Furthermore, at one time I maintained my own repository of 32-bit packages, some of which were not available in [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. quequotion (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Thanks for putting it all together. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Settled, so closed. quequotion (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)