On 2022-01-29 13:11:05 (+0100), Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
* Signing enclave * Better rebuilding tools * Build automation * Git migration
It would make discussions like these completely obsolete. Do we want v2, v3, v4, v5, v90001? Enable it in a setting and we'd have the repos. It is a lot of work but it would modernize and make things a lot simpler for us.
FWIW: I fully agree with the above. As tempting as it may seem to "just do it": The time spent on the tooling that would allow us to handle this amount of packages in an automatable fashion lacks greatly. I do not see that "we have had feature X for Y years" can serve as reason for introducing a lot more work or for adding outsiders to the packaging context. The tooling - instead of improving - will further stagnate and be cemented this way. This is something we have to consider and work on. I am afraid that otherwise we are maneuvering ourselves into an unmanagable corner with this. To be more specific: I believe our current best way forward is to continuously propagate our pain point projects that are our main blockers to achieve adding more architectures easily (and in a manageable fashion, without burning out packagers). We need more contributors to improve and focus on these projects and this can and should be done by advertising them more specifically and more regularly. I am not against introducing one or many new architectures, but I am certain that it will take a negative toll on our current group of packagers (even with additional packagers) due to the current set of tooling at hand (as it diverts the attention from improving the tooling). Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de