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 personally don't see a big problem with the so called "bloated" PKGBUILD's. Most PKGBUILDs will be clean cause they compile on arch64 without any changes anyway, and a few PKGBUILDS with a few extra lines here and there shouldn't bother anyone, I think.
I think having a separate svn/cvs for the ports is too tedious as we have to keep going back and forth when checking out PKGBUILD's for those difficult packages. Integrating everything into a single cvs should save a lot of time.- 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.
_______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports