April 2006 - Arch-ports - lists.archlinux.org

[arch-ports] [Arch64] amd_agp driver and via_agp driver
by Strat 07 Apr '06

07 Apr '06

Hy all I am building the xf86-video-openchrome driver and I discovered that the ammd64_agp and the via_agp driver where not included in defaut kernel package (neither 2.6.16 or 2.6.15). As they are included in arch 32 I wonder if there is a reason for that. Also, if someone is intersted in the openchrome PKGBUILD, I can post it here. -- Strat

2 3

[arch-ports] [Arch64] Kernel26 package
by Strat 07 Apr '06

07 Apr '06

Hello again I am trying to build the kernel26 package from the svn repo but the mmconfig-2.6.16.patch file is missing. Am I using the right svn server (http://arch64.org/svn/trunk/current/) or is there another way to get the kernel26 PKGBUILD for arch 64 thanks -- Strat

3 4

[arch-ports] developing the (arch64) port
by Andreas Radke 05 Apr '06

05 Apr '06

On the port side: - All arch64 developers should read this: http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/archs/amd64/ "Applying |-fPIC| on all objects will slow down the binaries in a drastic way." So I will drop it again from the default CFLAGS. A new pacman package is needed. I'll do this later when we are sure how the future development will be. - So we need to review all packages for sorting out packages that will build *.so files. That's how I understand the Gentoo rule. Am I right? We can use a script crawling through /* for *.so | pacman -Qo to get the packages we need to patch with CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -fPIC" ??? Who can do this first? Then check the result against Gentoo and Fedora. - Then a recompile of the whole distro will be needed. makeworld will be my friend :) I hope this will solve our last problems with the iso(mkfs.ext3, lilo, grub) What I expect from the official archlinux developers side: - Jason, I've come to the conclusion that a common cvs and common pkgbuilds are not good for getting the ports accepted. It would take us a long time until i686 developers will accept bloated pkgbuilds and preparing the "arch" tag would take its time. I still don't know why we should need the "arch" tag. I think it would be only to declare if the pkgbuild builds on a certain architecture. But as long as the packages are build by a packager and not automatically we don't really need it. - I disagree to your opinion that i686 packagers will ever be able to build packages for the ports using pacbuild. Every package needs a check and real installation on the destination architecture before you can upload it to the repos. So you always will need to have a few packagers more for each port to check packages and play with bugfixes. - So I would prefer a separate svn/cvs for each port. Every port should be free to decide what packages to include into the port. This may not be as elegant as common cvs+pkgbuild but it's much easier to handle. - No changes would be need to pacman/makepkg. Less work and less learning for all - more KISS for everyone. And it will not take more space on the servers or something like that. So setup a separate svn for arch64 and create new subrepos for x86_64 and give a few of us access - we could start tomorrow! I know some arch64 devs dying to do real productiv stuff. Otherwise as I told you more packagers will leave the port. AndyRTR

4 7

[arch-ports] [Arch64] Slow 32 bit apps And xf86-video-unichrome
by Strat 04 Apr '06

04 Apr '06

Hy all I have switched from Arch to Arch64 about a week ago and (almost) everything is going fine. For openoffice and firefox with flash, I use the chroot trick to load the 32 bits version. However and especially for openoffice, the startup is significantly slower than on the 32 bit system. So I was wondering if some of you had tricks to fasten responsiveness of openoffice until they release a working 64 bit port. I use the following command : [strat@machinastratus]$ chroot /mnt/arch32 su strat -c /opt/openoffice/program/soffice.bin and, of course, /proc is binded to /mnt/arch32/dev as for dev and home. Secondly, I wonder if anyone uses the xf86-video-unichrome on a KM800 board since I can't get a working Xorg with it and I must stick with xf86-video-via. Anyway, these are not major issues, but I thank all responses in advances. -- Strat

2 2

[arch-ports] -fPIC
by Mr Green 03 Apr '06

03 Apr '06

Hi, I am very confused now, I have been building packages for Arch64 that break because they need to be compiled with -fPIC. Are we going to drop this flag ? if so should I remove it from makepkg.conf ? As for SVN/CVS lets have one or the other I would rather use SVN .... than CVS but as Cam states getting ABS working would be a big help Emm Lets get Base packages up to date first & build on that . Cam & Andy I am willing to help help out testing building you just gotta ask, I' m no developer but I am not afraid of using a term ;-) MrGreen

2 1