[arch-dev-public] Starting x86_64_v3 port

[Morten Linderud]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:45:57AM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 29/1/22 11:28, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:22:32AM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > On 29/1/22 11:13, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:12:30AM +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > > > Is there any particular objection to requiring packagers upload both
> > > > > architectures?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm personally not really motivated doing the required builds. We have an
> > > > underdeveloped infrastructure which hasn't changed since we abandoned i686 5
> > > > years ago.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd personally like to see more work on our build tooling before we commit to
> > > > new architectures.
> > > 
> > > FYI, it is a single extra command.  Either of these will work...
> > > 
> > > offload-build --arch x86_64_v3
> > > extra-x86_64_v3-build
> > > 
> > > Nothing else changes for the packager.
> > > 
> > > Allan
> > 
> > I'll spend twice as long waiting for a package to build which increases the time
> > spent packaging. Which again requires me to spend more time watching stuff fly
> > by.
> 
> I have concerns if that is how you spend your time...  :)
> 

I have plenty time left over to ask for pacman backports :) DO NOT WORRY!


> > This also assumes people are capable of using the buildserver which is not
> > always the case either.
> > 
> > This wasn't great with i686, and I'm not sure why we'd find this acceptable
> > today?
> 
> What was not great with i686?  We managed two architectures for many, many
> years.  The reason for removing i686 was to do with outdated technology, not
> to do with build times or infrastructure.
> 
> Do you have objections beyond not wanting to package for both repos? i.e. do
> you object to option C in my original email, where we have a team to keep
> the repos in sync when package maintainers do not build both?

I'm simply not sure where you are going to get the people for that and how you
want to deal with it?

A *lot* has changed since the x86_64 port. Bringing on people to do these
rebuild implies they need access to infrastructure, keyring and so on. And we
already have a staff shortage.

I'd like to see some details on how you envision C should be working first.

Generally my thoughts is that we shouldn't *need* to have a more manhours to
deal with a x86_64_v3. We should instead strenghten our staff and work on the
following:

* Signing enclave
* Better rebuilding tools
* Build automation
* Git migration

It would make discussions like these completely obsolete. Do we want v2, v3,
v4, v5, v90001? Enable it in a setting and we'd have the repos. It is a lot of
work but it would modernize and make things a lot simpler for us.

-- 
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20220129/aded52bd/attachment.sig>