[arch-dev-public] Starting x86_64_v3 port

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Sat Jan 29 03:31:59 UTC 2022

On 29/1/22 13:12, Felix Yan via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 1/29/22 02:12, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> The decision to be made is who will package for this repo?  I think 
>> these are the options:
>> A) packagers upload both x86_64 and x86_64_v3 to the repos. Our build 
>> server will help those without x86_64_v3 machines.
>> B) we recruit some packagers to build the x86_64_v3 packages.
>> C) Some combination of A+B.
>> My understanding is our x86_64 port started with B, then C, then A.
> I am fine with either and could happily help with B in long term.
> For me the issue with either B or C is that our packages are often FTBFS 
> and we are slow to fix them, generally. To make the port really usable 
> for a B/C workflow, we need a way to fill in the time gap (because the 
> old package could be unusable for the time, like missing a so-name bump 
> etc).
> Do you find it acceptable if the x86_64_v3 rebuilders put back in the 
> new x86_64 package until the build was fixed and probably a point pkgrel 
> was added for the real x86_64_v3 rebuild, as long as we use B/C to build 
> for x86_64_v3, in the long term?

I envisioned the x86_64_v3 repos were initially seeded with x86_64 
packages.  Then x86_64_v3 packages gradually replaced them as 
updates/rebuilds happen in x86_64.

FTBFS for new packages should be less of an issue as long as the two 
repos do not get out of sync for long - I was considering the 
i686/x86_64 days where the sync with i686 was within days if not hours.

But yes, a workaround could be adding x86_64 packages into x86_64_v3 if 
really needed.  I'm not sure the workflow for doing that in terms of 


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list