Hi, A) I can do both with my server, but I don't package a lot. B) I agree with Andy here it should be automated. When the automatic setup is realized, we should definitly consider to support more architectures, like aarch64 for the new showing up arm servers and Apple Macs. greetings tpowa Am Sa., 29. Jan. 2022 um 01:12 Uhr schrieb Allan McRae via arch-dev-public < arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org>:
Hi all,
You may remember long in the past we discussed adding an x86_64_v3 port. From memory, pkgstats shows this will benefit ~2/3 (or 3/4?) of our users! So lets get this underway!
Apart from tooling (devtools/dbscripts), we need to make some decisions.
My plan is to seed the x86_64_v3 repos with x86_64 packages and then they get replaced as updates/rebuilds happen (potentially supplemented with a rebuild party). Pacman 6.0 can handle this. This is not a perfectly clean new port, but is substantially less of a burden than releasing a pure x86_64_v3 port. Our .BUILDINFO files do record the package architecture, so this mixture should not affect (e.g.) our reproducible builds etc.
The decision to be made is who will package for this repo? I think these are the options:
A) packagers upload both x86_64 and x86_64_v3 to the repos. Our build server will help those without x86_64_v3 machines.
B) we recruit some packagers to build the x86_64_v3 packages.
C) Some combination of A+B.
My understanding is our x86_64 port started with B, then C, then A.
I think with our build infrastructure now, we can start with A, but that is more of a burden for packagers. I doubt it will be much of a burden as x86_64_v3 specific build issues are unlikely.
Is there any particular objection to requiring packagers upload both architectures?
Allan
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) https://www.archlinux.org <http://www.archlinux.org> tpowa@archlinux.org St. Martin-Apotheke Herzog-Georg-Str. 25 89415 Lauingen https://www.st-martin-apo.de info@st-martin-apo.de