[arch-dev-public] Starting x86_64_v3 port

[Morten Linderud]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 09:35:07AM -0800, Brett Cornwall via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 2022-01-29 15:16, Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 2:49 PM Allan McRae via arch-dev-public
> > <arch-dev-public at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > Assuming we need people to help the x86_64_v3 port, I would post a news
> > > item and have people apply.  We have advertised developer positions in
> > > the past and received dozens of applications, and readily filled the
> > > available positions with quality applicants.  They would be brought on
> > > as Package Maintainers (once approved on the staff list) with access to
> > > [extra] and [community], and have packaging privileges including being
> > > added to the keyring.
> > > 
> > > While advertising for x86_64_v3 specific packagers, we should make a
> > > list of other packaging areas needing help and recruit for those too.
> > 
> > While I would have preferred to gradually have raised the CPU
> > requirements of our main repo (e.g. v2 right now and v3 in a few
> > years), maintaining two x86_64 variants for a transition period might
> > work. Nonetheless we should in work on how to get Arch back to be
> > bleeding edge regardless of this. One aspect might be to reduce the
> > overall amount of packages and get rid of unmaintained software
> > (either by us or upstream).
> > 
> > As the vast majority of hardware is v3 already we should consider
> > x86_64 (<v3) to be deprecated. I'd even recommend to agree on a date
> > when support for such CPUs will be dropped. Personally I would only
> > use and test on v3 once it is available. While not all of you might
> > agree right now, this is how it will end up eventually, like it did
> > with i686. Long story short: we might be looking for people
> > maintaining the x86_64 repos and not the v3 ones.
> 
> Indeed, I would rather that we just move everything to v3 instead of
> supporting different versions.
> 
> This seems the simplest way forward.

This was already discussed in our RFC and rejected. I'd prefer if we stick to
what was agreed on there. Multiple points was raised which is worth reading up
on.

https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/2

-- 
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/fa0bd64e/attachment.sig>