[Dev] [PATCH] libretools: fix i686 gpg signature failures

[Luke Shumaker]

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
> around.
> 
> 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.

Two questions:

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
packages exist?)

2. If yes, which one wins?  i686 or ARM?

Thanks.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker