[arch-dev-public] Architecture rollcall
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status). If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important. Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones. These are my systems: x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
2008/7/5, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
Now, I can build for i686 only. -- Arch Linux Developer (voidnull) AUR & Pacman Italian Translations Microdia Developer http://www.archlinux.it
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Giovanni Scafora <linuxmania@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/7/5, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
Now, I can build for i686 only.
i686: 1 x86_64: 1 (this is the build machine I keep wanting someone to set up) I don't usually use the build machine myself... Jason
Thomas Bächler wrote:
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status).
If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important.
Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones.
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
I don't do any building at the moment, but I have only one i686 machine. If I take on any packages, they will likely be architecture-independent python packages. Dusty
I have a laptop of each architecture and an i686 server at work. Allan
x86_64: 1 i686: 1 (+ 1 server) i686/x86_64 (chroot): as many as I want ;-) -- http://www.archlinux.de
Thomas Bächler wrote:
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status).
If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important.
Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones.
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
I have only a i686, but i would like to use an x86_64 build machine. -- Douglas Soares de Andrade -- ThreePointsWeb - www.threepointsweb.com -- Python, Zope e Plone == Archlinux Trusted User - dsa ** Quote: Old programmers never die; they exit to a higher shell.
x86_64: 1 Cheers, Don
i686 (full): 3
x86_64: 1, with i686 and i686 testing partitions Speaking of which: does anyone have recommendations about virtual machines vs chroots and x86_64 real/i686 virtual vs i686 real/x86_84 virtual? I'd like to start building 64 bit but without all the rebooting. k -- K. Piche <kpiche@rogers.com>
x86_64: 1 (work laptop) i686: 3 (work pc, home pc, home laptop) 100+ other boxes of mixed architecture that can't really be testing grounds or build boxes because they're production systems. Dale
i686: 1 x86_64: 1 Alex
Hi, Some users would think we should keep wine 1.0.x on extra since it is the stable version. Some users would disagree as many bugs will never be fixed in the stable 1.0.x tree and many features will not be added neither. I have suggestions: 1) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond which will provide and conflict with wine, as well in extra. 2) Latest wine version always in extra, as this is an evolutionary package, and people like to have the latest version of it. 3) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond in unstable. Please, add your suggestions, but I would like 1 or 2 to become the solution, I really don't like 3, since wine isn't unstable, just ever changing and adding features.
Eduardo Romero wrote:
Hi,
Some users would think we should keep wine 1.0.x on extra since it is the stable version. Some users would disagree as many bugs will never be fixed in the stable 1.0.x tree and many features will not be added neither. I have suggestions:
1) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond which will provide and conflict with wine, as well in extra. 2) Latest wine version always in extra, as this is an evolutionary package, and people like to have the latest version of it. 3) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond in unstable.
Please, add your suggestions, but I would like 1 or 2 to become the solution, I really don't like 3, since wine isn't unstable, just ever changing and adding features.
I see the difficulty. It looks like wine 1.1.x is released every two weeks so will be much like the old wine releases that people always wanted really quickly... But it is marked as the developmental branch now and in general we ship the latest stable package. I'd go with #2 and see how many complaints you get. Allan
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:51:30 -0400 Eduardo Romero <k3nsai@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Some users would think we should keep wine 1.0.x on extra since it is the stable version. Some users would disagree as many bugs will never be fixed in the stable 1.0.x tree and many features will not be added neither. I have suggestions:
1) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond which will provide and conflict with wine, as well in extra. 2) Latest wine version always in extra, as this is an evolutionary package, and people like to have the latest version of it. 3) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond in unstable.
Please, add your suggestions, but I would like 1 or 2 to become the solution, I really don't like 3, since wine isn't unstable, just ever changing and adding features.
In my opinion, wine was and is always an development package. There were never complains about the latest wine release in the past, why should there be complains in the future about the latest wine package. I would provide always the latest wine package in extra, no separation between wine and wine-unstable. +1 for #2 Daniel
Eduardo Romero wrote:
Hi,
Some users would think we should keep wine 1.0.x on extra since it is the stable version. Some users would disagree as many bugs will never be fixed in the stable 1.0.x tree and many features will not be added neither. I have suggestions:
1) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond which will provide and conflict with wine, as well in extra. 2) Latest wine version always in extra, as this is an evolutionary package, and people like to have the latest version of it. 3) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond in unstable.
Please, add your suggestions, but I would like 1 or 2 to become the solution, I really don't like 3, since wine isn't unstable, just ever changing and adding features.
I would support whatever decision you decide here, Eduardo. I'm generally in favor of having a stable package in extra, but it might not make sense in this case. I'd go with whatever you think makes most sense, and switch later if you find it's not working. Best, - P
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Eduardo Romero wrote:
Hi,
Some users would think we should keep wine 1.0.x on extra since it is the stable version. Some users would disagree as many bugs will never be fixed in the stable 1.0.x tree and many features will not be added neither. I have suggestions:
1) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond which will provide and conflict with wine, as well in extra. 2) Latest wine version always in extra, as this is an evolutionary package, and people like to have the latest version of it. 3) wine 1.0.x in extra and wine-devel 1.1.0 and beyond in unstable.
Please, add your suggestions, but I would like 1 or 2 to become the solution, I really don't like 3, since wine isn't unstable, just ever changing and adding features.
I would support whatever decision you decide here, Eduardo. I'm generally in favor of having a stable package in extra, but it might not make sense in this case.
I'd go with whatever you think makes most sense, and switch later if you find it's not working.
I'll side with Paul on this issue. I like "stable" versions, but at the same time, I figure you know best - go with your gut on this one
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:05 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
I would support whatever decision you decide here, Eduardo. I'm generally in favor of having a stable package in extra, but it might not make sense in this case.
I'd go with whatever you think makes most sense, and switch later if you find it's not working.
I'll side with Paul on this issue. I like "stable" versions, but at the same time, I figure you know best - go with your gut on this one
Let's see if my guts gets me many complains. :-D Thanks for your suggestions here guys, I went the always the latest wine version in extra way. Hope it all turns out OK.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Eduardo Romero wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:05 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
I would support whatever decision you decide here, Eduardo. I'm generally in favor of having a stable package in extra, but it might not make sense in this case.
I'd go with whatever you think makes most sense, and switch later if you find it's not working.
I'll side with Paul on this issue. I like "stable" versions, but at the same time, I figure you know best - go with your gut on this one
Let's see if my guts gets me many complains. :-D Thanks for your suggestions here guys, I went the always the latest wine version in extra way. Hope it all turns out OK.
Also, if you notice that a release has important problems and/or regressions, you can always decide to skip it and to wait for the next one. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
i686: 1 x86_64: 1 François
i686 (Full): 2 (laptop and pc) -- Hugo Doria
i686 (full): 1
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
i686 (full): 1
Here it's: i686 (full): 1 x86_64 (full): 1 Eventually, I'll also have an i686 (chroot) on my x86_64whenever I finish to set it up. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
Here it's:
i686 (full): 1 x86_64 (full): 1
Eventually, I'll also have an i686 (chroot) on my x86_64whenever I finish to set it up.
I'm late to this party. i686 (full): 1 (main laptop, uses testing) x86_64 (full): 0.5 (hardware is janky/broken, working on fixing it) I also have another i686 laptop which has windows on it right now which I want to wipe and reinstall when I get a chance.
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 18:32 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status).
If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important.
Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones.
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 2
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 18:32 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status).
If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important.
Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones.
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 2
at the moment I have x86_64: 1 i686 (full): 2 i686 (chroot): 1 though obviously more chroots can be added if I need them. Ronald
x86_64: 3 full i686: 1 in chroots -Andy
Hi gang, only x86 boxes: i686: 3 one is my laptop one is my workbox both use current and extra I have an old laptop i686 that actually runs testing On Sat, 05 Jul 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
As there are many new guys around, I want to know what architectures you can build for. I want to know three things: Do you have an arch x86_64 system? Do you have an arch i686 build system (can be a chroot on your x86_64). Do you also have a bootable arch i686 system? Also include the number of systems for each category. Only your own machines count, not the build machines that we offer (or offered, I'm unsure about the status).
If you only have an i686 chroot and no bootable system, you may be unable to test certain packages, thus I think this information is important.
Maybe we can collect this information later and wikify it. I would like every (semi-)active dev to respond, not just the new ones.
These are my systems:
x86_64: 2 i686 (chroot): 2 i686 (full): 1
Howdy, x86_64 (full): 1 (at work) i686 (full): 1 Also got a slicehost slice, but am thinking of giving that one up. --vk
participants (25)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alexander Fehr
-
Allan McRae
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dale Blount
-
Dan McGee
-
Daniel Isenmann
-
Don Stewart
-
Douglas Soares de Andrade
-
Dusty Phillips
-
Eduardo Romero
-
Eric Belanger
-
Firmicus
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Hugo Doria
-
Jan de Groot
-
Jason Chu
-
K. Piche
-
Paul Mattal
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Ronald van Haren
-
Thayer Williams
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Kieslich
-
Vesa Kaihlavirta