[arch-dev-public] Starting x86_64_v3 port
tobias.powalowski at googlemail.com
Mon Jan 31 08:01:30 UTC 2022
A) I can do both with my server, but I don't package a lot.
B) I agree with Andy here it should be automated.
When the automatic setup is realized, we should definitly consider to
support more architectures,
like aarch64 for the new showing up arm servers and Apple Macs.
Am Sa., 29. Jan. 2022 um 01:12 Uhr schrieb Allan McRae via arch-dev-public <
arch-dev-public at lists.archlinux.org>:
> Hi all,
> You may remember long in the past we discussed adding an x86_64_v3 port.
> From memory, pkgstats shows this will benefit ~2/3 (or 3/4?) of our
> users! So lets get this underway!
> Apart from tooling (devtools/dbscripts), we need to make some decisions.
> My plan is to seed the x86_64_v3 repos with x86_64 packages and then
> they get replaced as updates/rebuilds happen (potentially supplemented
> with a rebuild party). Pacman 6.0 can handle this. This is not a
> perfectly clean new port, but is substantially less of a burden than
> releasing a pure x86_64_v3 port. Our .BUILDINFO files do record the
> package architecture, so this mixture should not affect (e.g.) our
> reproducible builds etc.
> 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 think with our build infrastructure now, we can start with A, but that
> is more of a burden for packagers. I doubt it will be much of a burden
> as x86_64_v3 specific build issues are unlikely.
> Is there any particular objection to requiring packagers upload both
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
tpowa at archlinux.org
info at st-martin-apo.de
More information about the arch-dev-public