Should I automatically add 'x86_64' to my PKGBUILDs?

Question

Hi,
i got a question: Should i automatically add x86_64 to my PKGBUILDs or not? I'm only running 32bit.
My default behaviour always was to not add it and wait until somebody sends me a comment like "hi, it's running fine on x86_64, please add..." or "hi, you need to blablabla to get this running on x86_64" and then i would normally drop the package with a comment that i'm unable to maintain 64bit packages.
Now, recently i got a comment for one of my packages like "hi, fix your shit, x86_64 is so common these day".
So what's your opinion/Is there a default policy that i've overlooked? Should i stick to my old behaviour not adding x86_64 by default at the risk of annoying users and making things more complicated (comment ping-pong) or should i just add it and assume it'll be okay? Is there any guide/article which mentions potential problems with building 64bit packages, so that i can asses if there might occur problems or not?

Answer 1

@Masuto
I am one of the people who asked you to add x86_64 to pkgbuilds, more specifically - petri-foo && ebumeter - which both compile fine and work on x86_64. Which is exactly the reason i asked you to add x86_64. ie: i use both of those packages, almost daily on my 64bit system and didn't ask you to add x86_64 without first making sure they worked okay. Also, even if their was a (later) problem of x86_64 version not compiling - the problem would be reported upstream to the developer, as a problem like that should be reported upstream, rather than expecting the packager to have to fix the developers the code.
I'd also like to point something out here; I did not make any demands, nor did i say this;
masuto wrote:hi, fix your shit, x86_64 is so common these day
Now here is actually what i said;
triplesquarednine wrote:
*please* fix your pkgbuild;
==> ERROR: ebumeter is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.
Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
such as arch=('x86_64').
64bit CPUs are pretty much standard these days, so you should have x86_64 specified in there.
cheerz
I see a big difference in your interpretation of what i said vs. what was actually said;
I politely asked you to fix your pkgbuild and 'cheerz' also indicates a salute / thanks / gratitude / appreciation... 
Maybe i am wrong to assume you 'should' have x86_64, using the reasoning that 64bit CPUs dominate the market and are quite common place ~ but when both packages are working fine for 64bit and only require adding x86_64 to the arch=() in order for x86_64 users to use them - i can't imagine any reason to not add them.
do we really need to have separate x86_64 pkgbuilds/AUR for either of those packages?
food for thought.
Last edited by triplesquarednine (2012-07-18 18:03:22)