[arch-ports] [i686] Next steps
Hi everyone, sorry for writing so late but there is limit of things I can accomplish every day and that list always includes some cat pictures. As you are most likely aware, I recently announced the deprecation of i686 support. However I would like this to turn out into a second tier architecture. I can imagine that there is no need for huge team of packagers; as i686 isn't very different from x86_64, it will be mostly "catch up" game against base distribution (Arch). ARM team already did this work[1] so it's mostly about setting it up with few build servers. ARM port also maintains a separate git repository with modified PKGBUILDs that wouldn't otherwise build on ARM. I'd probably consider targeting i486 or i586 instead to include more old hardware. i686 misses the fanciest features anyway. So these are my 5 cents. I keep an eye on the mailing list and will try to reply in timely manner to any questions. Bartłomiej [1] http://github.com/archlinuxarm
Hi list, I'd propose the following steps - open for discussion and as you might notice more vague towards the end: preparations: - choose a name (my suggestion: archlinux32) - set up / use some git hosting (e.g. github) for maintenance of build-system, website, package-source-trees (there are two from archlinux.org: svntogit/community.git and svntogit/packages.git?), possibly our own packages (e.g. archlinux32-keyring?) - clone, understand and modify archlinuxarm's plugbuild (does this have some sort of documentation? - sry, I'm quite new to perl) testing: - set up build-clients (do they need to run i486/i586/i686 or can we cross compile from x86_64?) - compile, install, test packages - keep this up in parallel to official archlinux.org's i686 (so we have a sane benchmark and/or fallback) production: - hopefully change nothing but references in /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist on production systems ;-) As Bartłomiej pointed out, it would be nice to have i486 and i586 supported, too (*yay*, I finally can run arch on my router!). This shouldn't be a big deal if we really use archlinuxarm's plugbuild - they support compiling for multiple different architectures anyway. One thing I have no clue of, is how the isos are created. But probably it's straight forward if we have some system running on archlinux32 and installed "archiso". regards, Erich On 30.01.2017 23:42, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
Hi everyone,
sorry for writing so late but there is limit of things I can accomplish every day and that list always includes some cat pictures.
As you are most likely aware, I recently announced the deprecation of i686 support. However I would like this to turn out into a second tier architecture.
I can imagine that there is no need for huge team of packagers; as i686 isn't very different from x86_64, it will be mostly "catch up" game against base distribution (Arch). ARM team already did this work[1] so it's mostly about setting it up with few build servers. ARM port also maintains a separate git repository with modified PKGBUILDs that wouldn't otherwise build on ARM. I'd probably consider targeting i486 or i586 instead to include more old hardware. i686 misses the fanciest features anyway.
So these are my 5 cents. I keep an eye on the mailing list and will try to reply in timely manner to any questions.
Bartłomiej
[1] http://github.com/archlinuxarm _______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports@archlinux.org https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports
Hi all, we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32 If you feel, you have anything[1] to contribute, please send me an email with your account name on github.com and I'll invite you to the organization, so we can brainstorm and sort out details. regards, Erich 1] some inspirations what might be needed: code, packagers, maintainers, testers, infrastucture (server, computation power), artwork, ...
Hi everyone, Le 1 févr. 2017 à 22:18, Erich Eckner <arch@eckner.net> a écrit :
we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? I've nothing against though.
If you feel, you have anything[1] to contribute, please send me an email with your account name on github.com and I'll invite you to the organization,
I'd like very much to participate as a maintainer, tester and infrastructure provider (if needed) as I have various i686 machines running arch, but I don't have any github account, and I'm not particularly thrilled about creating one for that. Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure closer to Arch dev's one ?
so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ? My 2 cents… ---- Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355
Hi list, On 01.02.2017 23:02, Félix Faisant wrote:
Hi everyone,
Le 1 févr. 2017 à 22:18, Erich Eckner <arch@eckner.net> a écrit :
we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? I've nothing against though.
I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this has to be final.
If you feel, you have anything[1] to contribute, please send me an email with your account name on github.com and I'll invite you to the organization,
I'd like very much to participate as a maintainer, tester and infrastructure provider (if needed) as I have various i686 machines running arch, but I don't have any github account, and I'm not particularly thrilled about creating one for that.
Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure closer to Arch dev's one ?
archlinuxarm is maintained via github - this gave the idea. However, from a personal point I can understand the hesitation to create a github account. :-) In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for tickets, discussions, and the like. Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make more sense to copy from them.
so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ?
true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for that - at least to start with. Or with other words: City-busz just put a proposal for a build-system on: https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system (it's readable for anyone, I hope)
My 2 cents…
They're welcome.
---- Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355
regards, Erich
Hi list, Le 2 févr. 2017 à 00:01, Erich Eckner <arch@eckner.net> a écrit :
we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? I've nothing against though.
I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this has to be final.
Of course. Maybe we could just wait a day or two for interested people to give their opinion before going further.
Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure closer to Arch dev's one ?
In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for tickets, discussions, and the like.
Well, it's quite easy to setup and would not be difficult to maintain. I think it's more a question of efficiency. And indeed github could be appropriate for such low volume of work. But I don't use github so I can't tell.
Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make more sense to copy from them.
Even if the vast majority of PKGBUILDs and tool would be kept synced with Arch's ones ? Again, I didn't look close enough to archlinuxarm to tell...
so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ?
true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for that - at least to start with.
I think it's appropriated for per-package discussions or anything like that, but for the moment, it's more a general/technical discussion rather than a detailed one.
Or with other words: City-busz just put a proposal for a build-system on: https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system (it's readable for anyone, I hope)
Great. Seems good for me. Could we precise the signing strategy ? Moreover, as building is done on a single machine, we thus need a decent one. I'm not really aware of the needed power. What would be the frequency on builds ? Finally, it's quite obvious we will keep separate repos, right ? ---- Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355
Hello everybody, I hope I can contribute somehow too. I have one i686 machine running Arch, but I think it would be easier to test on a VM. And I don't mind if you decide to use github or something else. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Félix Faisant <xcodexif@xif.fr> wrote:
Hi list,
Le 2 févr. 2017 à 00:01, Erich Eckner <arch@eckner.net> a écrit :
we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? I've nothing against though.
I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this has to be final.
Of course. Maybe we could just wait a day or two for interested people to give their opinion before going further.
Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure closer to Arch dev's one ?
In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for tickets, discussions, and the like.
Well, it's quite easy to setup and would not be difficult to maintain. I think it's more a question of efficiency. And indeed github could be appropriate for such low volume of work. But I don't use github so I can't tell.
Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make more sense to copy from them.
Even if the vast majority of PKGBUILDs and tool would be kept synced with Arch's ones ? Again, I didn't look close enough to archlinuxarm to tell...
so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ?
true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for that - at least to start with.
I think it's appropriated for per-package discussions or anything like that, but for the moment, it's more a general/technical discussion rather than a detailed one.
Or with other words: City-busz just put a proposal for a build-system on: https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system (it's readable for anyone, I hope)
Great. Seems good for me. Could we precise the signing strategy ?
Moreover, as building is done on a single machine, we thus need a decent one. I'm not really aware of the needed power. What would be the frequency on builds ?
Finally, it's quite obvious we will keep separate repos, right ?
---- Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355
_______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list arch-ports@archlinux.org https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports
Hello list, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:51:35AM +0100, Félix Faisant wrote:
Hi list,
Le 2 févr. 2017 à 00:01, Erich Eckner <arch@eckner.net> a écrit :
we took a step forward and now we have: - a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
I thought of the same name so obviously I agree on that.
How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? I've nothing against though.
I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this has to be final.
Of course. Maybe we could just wait a day or two for interested people to give their opinion before going further.
Giving people some time is essential in opinion for a community project to function. But again its nice to see people take initiative.
Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure closer to Arch dev's one ?
In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for tickets, discussions, and the like.
Well, it's quite easy to setup and would not be difficult to maintain. I think it's more a question of efficiency. And indeed github could be appropriate for such low volume of work. But I don't use github so I can't tell.
I have no problem at all for using GitHub. We could also set up a private GitLab somewhere. Since the GitHub organisation is already setup I would go with that.
Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make more sense to copy from them.
Even if the vast majority of PKGBUILDs and tool would be kept synced with Arch's ones ? Again, I didn't look close enough to archlinuxarm to tell...
ArchLinuxARM is a good place to get ideas on how to get this project going, but the PKGBUILDs and the tools as already mentioned above will be close to the Arch way.
so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ?
true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for that - at least to start with.
I think it's appropriated for per-package discussions or anything like that, but for the moment, it's more a general/technical discussion rather than a detailed one.
I agree. We should mainly use the list so everybody can follow. IRC is good as well but no archive, so its better for problem solving that actual planning.
Or with other words: City-busz just put a proposal for a build-system on: https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system (it's readable for anyone, I hope)
Great. Seems good for me. Could we precise the signing strategy ?
Moreover, as building is done on a single machine, we thus need a decent one. I'm not really aware of the needed power. What would be the frequency on builds ?
Finally, it's quite obvious we will keep separate repos, right ?
From the official Arch ones? Yes, that's what I picked up.
-- nick@discloud.eu GPG: 0x7E8A06A6C80574E4
Hi list, On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:18:34PM +0100, Erich Eckner wrote:
Hi all,
we took a step forward and now we have:
- a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
After some discussion on the IRC we setup archlinux32.org to point to a VPS of mine. I setup a basic NginX and a web-page [1]. I added a logo which is really simple since I'm not good whith graphics. I like the idea though, old retro looking pixeled logo (maybe even the whole logo pixeled). Check it out and let me know what you think of it. [1] - http://archlinux32.org -- nick@discloud.eu GPG: 0x7E8A06A6C80574E4
Hi Polichronucci Yes I like it. Good to see things are moving along. On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:05:37 +0200 Polichronucci <nick@discloud.eu> wrote:
Hi list,
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:18:34PM +0100, Erich Eckner wrote:
Hi all,
we took a step forward and now we have:
- a name: archlinux32 - a domain: archlinux32.org - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
After some discussion on the IRC we setup archlinux32.org to point to a VPS of mine. I setup a basic NginX and a web-page [1]. I added a logo which is really simple since I'm not good whith graphics. I like the idea though, old retro looking pixeled logo (maybe even the whole logo pixeled).
Check it out and let me know what you think of it.
[1] - http://archlinux32.org
participants (6)
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Erich Eckner
-
Félix Faisant
-
Martyn Yates
-
Petras Petunov
-
Polichronucci