[arch-dev-public] RFC: Use x86_64-v2 architecture

[Eli Schwartz]

On 3/2/21 8:10 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 3/3/21 11:03 am, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> I wonder, might this be an interesting time to reintroduce multiple
>> architectures?
>>
>> We used to offer i686 and x86_64.
>>
>> Maybe now we could offer x86_64, x86_64-v2, and x86_64-v3. Or go right
>> to -v4.
>>
> 
> That is a possibility that has been discussed over the years.  It was
> previously decided that we needed other architecture builds to be
> automated, and thus automated package signing.  This becomes a
> possibility once we manage to sign databases (which will hit a decade of
> pacman support in October!).


I wasn't on the packaging team back when i686 was supported, so I don't
know about the experience firsthand. But I thought it was just "run
extra-*-build twice and commit the result"?

Like i686 builds from a developer with an x86_64 laptop, this is
something that should be doable for all architectures from one machine.
Building the more advanced architectures might, for some people, require
using build.archlinux.org (via offload-build), which come to think of it
supports x86-64-v3 but not x86-64-v4...

I'm aware of discussion about CPU architectures that are not x86 and
which, by and large, members of the packaging team don't have hardware
for. (RISC-V, aarch64) This is thoroughly blocked on the theory of
autobuilding for practical reasons in ways that x86-64-v2 is not.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20210302/d656ee76/attachment.sig>