You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a Scoop user, I frequently encounter scenarios where I need to install software packages designed for a different architecture than my host system. For example, I may need to install a 32-bit application (like Win32 Boost) on a 64-bit Windows system. Currently, Scoop does not seem to support downloading and installing packages for different architectures.
Desired Solution:
I propose implementing a mechanism within Scoop that allows users to specify the desired architecture when installing packages. This could be achieved through:
Adding a command-line option:
Introduce an option like --arch or --architecture to the scoop install command, allowing users to specify the desired architecture (e.g., scoop install boost-1.81.0-win32 --arch win32).
Extending the package manifest:
Enhance the package manifest format to include architecture information. This would allow users to explicitly request a specific architecture when installing a package.
Supporting architecture-specific manifests:
Create separate manifests for different architectures (e.g., manifest.win32.yaml, manifest.x64.yaml). Scoop would then select the appropriate manifest based on the user's system architecture and the specified architecture.
Drawbacks:
Increased complexity in package management.
Potential for conflicts if users install multiple architectures of the same package.
Alternatives Considered:
Manual compilation: Users could manually compile the software from source, but this requires technical expertise and can be time-consuming.
Using third-party tools: Users could use third-party tools to download and install specific architectures of software packages. However, this might not be as integrated or user-friendly as a Scoop solution.
Expected Benefits:
Increased flexibility: Enables users to install software packages for different architectures based on their specific needs.
Improved compatibility: Allows users to run applications designed for different architectures on their systems.
Enhanced user experience: Provides a more streamlined and user-friendly experience for managing software packages.
I believe that this feature would greatly enhance the usability and flexibility of Scoop for users who require software packages for different architectures.
System Information:
Operating System: Windows 11 x64
Scoop version: v0.5.2
Thank you for considering this feature request. I look forward to your feedback and any updates on this matter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As a Scoop user, I frequently encounter scenarios where I need to install software packages designed for a different architecture than my host system. For example, I may need to install a 32-bit application (like Win32 Boost) on a 64-bit Windows system. Currently, Scoop does not seem to support downloading and installing packages for different architectures.
Desired Solution:
I propose implementing a mechanism within Scoop that allows users to specify the desired architecture when installing packages. This could be achieved through:
Adding a command-line option:
Introduce an option like --arch or --architecture to the scoop install command, allowing users to specify the desired architecture (e.g., scoop install boost-1.81.0-win32 --arch win32).
Extending the package manifest:
Enhance the package manifest format to include architecture information. This would allow users to explicitly request a specific architecture when installing a package.
Supporting architecture-specific manifests:
Create separate manifests for different architectures (e.g., manifest.win32.yaml, manifest.x64.yaml). Scoop would then select the appropriate manifest based on the user's system architecture and the specified architecture.
Drawbacks:
Increased complexity in package management.
Potential for conflicts if users install multiple architectures of the same package.
Alternatives Considered:
Manual compilation: Users could manually compile the software from source, but this requires technical expertise and can be time-consuming.
Using third-party tools: Users could use third-party tools to download and install specific architectures of software packages. However, this might not be as integrated or user-friendly as a Scoop solution.
Expected Benefits:
Increased flexibility: Enables users to install software packages for different architectures based on their specific needs.
Improved compatibility: Allows users to run applications designed for different architectures on their systems.
Enhanced user experience: Provides a more streamlined and user-friendly experience for managing software packages.
I believe that this feature would greatly enhance the usability and flexibility of Scoop for users who require software packages for different architectures.
System Information:
Operating System: Windows 11 x64
Scoop version: v0.5.2
Thank you for considering this feature request. I look forward to your feedback and any updates on this matter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: