[arch-ports] What's needed for an official port
I've been asked a couple of times about what the port people can do to make their ports official. What I'm trying to do here is list all of the things that must be done before we can have our first official port. A few things need to happen on the Arch Linux developer side: - makepkg needs support for arch=() - the db-* scripts need to be updated for multiple architectures - we need more CVS tags* - the pkgrel-<arch> changes need to be implemented in makepkg and gensync** A few things need to happen on the port side as well: - a good number of packages that can be easily integrated into the official PKGBUILDs (which means changes are marked). I'd even go so far as to say that most packages have to be rebuilt against the merged PKGBUILDs. - a working install cd - pacbuild nodes*** Is there anything I've missed? Jason *: We don't need to make them, just figure out what they will be **: Should this one be in there? Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, but it would really help cut down on unnecessary updates for other arches ***: Also not strictly necessary, but I think it'd help for non-x86_64 developers to try building their changes on x86_64. -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
Jason Chu schrieb:
I've been asked a couple of times about what the port people can do to make their ports official. What I'm trying to do here is list all of the things that must be done before we can have our first official port.
A few things need to happen on the Arch Linux developer side: - makepkg needs support for arch=() - the db-* scripts need to be updated for multiple architectures - we need more CVS tags* - the pkgrel-<arch> changes need to be implemented in makepkg and gensync**
A few things need to happen on the port side as well: - a good number of packages that can be easily integrated into the official PKGBUILDs (which means changes are marked). I'd even go so far as to say that most packages have to be rebuilt against the merged PKGBUILDs. - a working install cd - pacbuild nodes***
Is there anything I've missed?
Jason
*: We don't need to make them, just figure out what they will be **: Should this one be in there? Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, but it would really help cut down on unnecessary updates for other arches ***: Also not strictly necessary, but I think it'd help for non-x86_64 developers to try building their changes on x86_64.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports
What about the cvs/svn/darcs question? Arch64 now uses svn and we only have the cvs package, not cvsup. But we have csup, a cvsup replacemnt: http://www.mu.org/~mux/csup.html Maybe someone can summarize all pros and cons for the various options. Andy
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:47:13AM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Jason Chu schrieb:
I've been asked a couple of times about what the port people can do to make their ports official. What I'm trying to do here is list all of the things that must be done before we can have our first official port.
A few things need to happen on the Arch Linux developer side: - makepkg needs support for arch=() - the db-* scripts need to be updated for multiple architectures - we need more CVS tags* - the pkgrel-<arch> changes need to be implemented in makepkg and gensync**
A few things need to happen on the port side as well: - a good number of packages that can be easily integrated into the official PKGBUILDs (which means changes are marked). I'd even go so far as to say that most packages have to be rebuilt against the merged PKGBUILDs. - a working install cd - pacbuild nodes***
Is there anything I've missed?
Jason
*: We don't need to make them, just figure out what they will be **: Should this one be in there? Strictly speaking, it's not necessary, but it would really help cut down on unnecessary updates for other arches ***: Also not strictly necessary, but I think it'd help for non-x86_64 developers to try building their changes on x86_64.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports
What about the cvs/svn/darcs question? Arch64 now uses svn and we only have the cvs package, not cvsup. But we have csup, a cvsup replacemnt: http://www.mu.org/~mux/csup.html
Maybe someone can summarize all pros and cons for the various options.
Andy
At this point, the least number of things changing means not changing version control. Csup is (from what I understand) a fine replacement for cvsup. What will probably happen then is that i686 will stick with cvsup and x86_64 will use csup. The error message will be updated to display the proper name for each in the abs script. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
Jason Chu wrote:
- a working install cd
I developed a script which creates a complete install cd with just a few commands. It's still under heavy development! Andreas built our 0.7.1 beta7 and rc1 install cd with it and they are working quit good (some bugs are left) I have some thoughts to give the script multi-arch support, so ppc and i686 may use it as well! Regards, Moritz
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:38:32PM +0100, Moritz Alexander Esser wrote:
Jason Chu wrote:
- a working install cd
I developed a script which creates a complete install cd with just a few commands. It's still under heavy development! Andreas built our 0.7.1 beta7 and rc1 install cd with it and they are working quit good (some bugs are left) I have some thoughts to give the script multi-arch support, so ppc and i686 may use it as well!
Regards, Moritz
I'd say make it available. As you may have sen in the last newsletter, we're looking into making the archie scripts official and we could use those to generate x86_64 install cds as well. Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
Jason Chu schrieb:
A few things need to happen on the port side as well: - a good number of packages that can be easily integrated into the official PKGBUILDs (which means changes are marked). I'd even go so far as to say that most packages have to be rebuilt against the merged PKGBUILDs. - a working install cd - pacbuild nodes***
I think we - the arch64 devs- have done what we could do. Our CD is working and almost in a final state. We're still waiting for results on the arch32 devs site. My arch64 devs are bored making updates knowing that a day will come all packages have to be rebuild. A few have already left the project :( I've done a few packages using the tags needed for merging "if [ $CARCH..." - no problem with that so far. But as we know we will have to rebuild every pkg this work is now just a waste of time. What's is the state with makepkg and cvs? Any concrete time schedule? AndyRTR
participants (3)
-
Andreas Radke
-
Jason Chu
-
Moritz Alexander Esser