Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#30153 - More specific package architectures than x86_64, i686
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Jonas Jelten (TheJJ) - Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 14:59 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 15:07 GMT
Opened by Jonas Jelten (TheJJ) - Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 14:59 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 15:07 GMT
|
DetailsI would like to have the possibility to have a better specification of the system architecture for packaging.
I cannot build a package with -march=native as people downloading the package from the repo can't know whether their pc supports this package. My suggestion: extend package archs from (x86_64, i686) to all of the possible -mtune/-march options. Also we will need a architecture dependency tree so pacman knows it can install the package and it will work. If this is implemented in pacman, a repo can contain multiple target architectures of a single package, and pacman autoselects the best for it's host. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 15:07 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 15:07 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) -
Wednesday, 06 June 2012, 15:07 GMT
This level of micro optimization isn't something that we care about.