[Dev] [PATCH] libretools: fix i686 gpg signature failures
lukeshu at lukeshu.com
Wed Mar 21 21:24:07 GMT 2018
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:58:28 -0400,
Isaac David wrote:
> Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:51:49 -0400,
> > Andreas Grapentin wrote:
> >> archlinux32 is building their own arch=(any) packages, which means
> >> they
> >> can't share the same cachedir as the x86_64 built -any
> >> packages. This
> >> patch adds a separate cachedir for each CARCH in librechroot, which
> >> should solve the signature issues we have seen in libremakepkg.
> > But we don't import arch=(any) packages from archlinux32 anymore, do
> > we?
> > Actually, I don't think we import arch=(any) packages from ALARM
> > anymore either.
> right, unless it's an original package.
> more precisely, Arch's arch=(any) packages may override
> existing ALARM or Arch32 pkgnames -- they are given priority
> and all architectures are meant to use archlinux-keyring.
> i don't expect this scenario to surface often in practice,
> since both ALARM and Arch32 follow Arch, not the other way
> on the other hand, ALARM and Arch32's arch=(any) packages aren't
> allowed to override Arch's arch=(any) stuff, nor each other's.
1. If there's an arch=(any) package that exists in ALARM and in
archlinux32, but not in archlinux, do we import it? (Do any such
2. If yes, which one wins? i686 or ARM?
~ Luke Shumaker
More information about the Dev