[arch-dev-public] we want to give x86_64 a new direction

[Jason Chu]

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:25:56PM +0200, Andreas Radke wrote:
> after beeing an official port as a 100% i686 clone with a common cvs we
> have seen that we can handle the workload with only 2 man in not a bad
> way but with tons of hours of rebuilding and uploading the packages. but
> we don't want that anymore. it's simply too much workload and a task we
> are tired to do. bringing on new packagers is harder than expected. repo
> cleanups and a possible not to far away start of pacbuild/repoman will
> not drop down the workload we would need. i686 devs are not able to
> handle 32bit stuff very well so i don't count on crossbuilds anymore.
> that's one reason.
> 
> the other one is beeing an i686 clone depending on its (not
> well defined) goals makes me sick. i miss any freedom in my work. at
> least the poor i686 testing procedure is something i don't want to
> follow anymore. i got more and more afraid how chaotic the developement
> is going on whithout the possebility to change it. now i see things
> start changing what is very good. but it seems most devs want to keep
> i686 the compromise of beeing bleading edge + at least some stability.
> 
> i haved proved to build a system almost from scratch to the quality we
> now have. we are no more behind i686. a big part of that goes to the
> i686 devs and their most times simple and working packages and the
> easiness to port them. the Arch tools are great.
> 
> but my personal goals have changed. together with Daniel we have found
> a few people that would support us if can go our own way. We have
> worked out some initial goals:
> 
> - we want Arch x86_64 the more conservative sister distribution of Arch
> - less bleading edge
> - still a rolling system with up to date packages
> - strict rules how packages go through a testing cycle
> - we expect a significant lower workload due to longer update cycles
>   and less post-release-fixing of broken stuff
> - only provide a basic core repo by the devs
> - setup some basic addon repos
> - open the addon repos to be maintained by the community and
>   reviewed/released by the developers untill community members have
>   proved to do it the same way. that's something where we are not sure
>   where i686 wants to go and if we will adopt it.
> 
> - it would not be prepared to have an x86 port. but only one x86(i586?)
>   dev would be enough to rebuild that distro with some help by an
>   automated build system.
> 
> All in all it would be nothing significant different from the port
> we now have but packages would be more selected and hit the repos later
> to ensure the improved stability.

Eventually, this will be the huge difference.

> we want to do this all together with the ArchLinux developers and
> community. we want to keep using all the great tools and resources Arch
> already offers.

What sorts of things do you want to "do all together"?  Do you mean you
just want to use the tools?  If so, that's fine.  Even frugalware does
that.

> the first step that would need to be done is to splitout our scm. i 
> cannot image to keep working with a common scm. that's what now makes it
> the clone we don't want to have any longer.
> 
> if you agree to give us that freedom back, i already have one good
> candidate for becoming a new x86_64 developer and several community
> members promised to help out. they all like our goals. at least that we
> will have some.

If that's what you want to do, that's fine.  No one is going to hold you
here doing something you don't want to do.

Eventually, with crossbuilding, it would be nice to have our own Arch64
distro following the same patterns, but maybe we're just not ready right
now.

I don't know what sorts of resources we could offer for you or what you're
expecting.  It would be better if things were totally separate.

I also don't know about the name.  If you want to keep calling it Arch64,
you're going to have to make it apparent that it's not following Arch Linux
anymore.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20070510/052c4b69/attachment.pgp>