[arch-ports] developing the (arch64) port

Andreas Radke a.radke at arcor.de
Tue Apr 4 16:21:40 EDT 2006

After some discussions between the x86_64 devs we agree that a common
pkgbuild tree is a good solution. It will bind us to follow arch32 as
much as possible but that's what a port only is. And that's ok.

It would be to dangerous to have a separate tree so it would be a fork
from the beginning on. That's not what we want to become.

In our view we cannot see anything what holds us from joining your party.

In my view we don't really need certain cvs trunks. I guess the i686
devs don't have the intention to move to svn so we will have to work
with the same cvs they already use. For checkout we can use csup and for
committing cvs. I suggest to keep using first pkgrel number for the i686
packages as you do now. So i686 would build every new pkg with a pkgrel
nr. -1. When you fix something you go with -2. Nothing new.

Even if nothing will make now use of it I suggest to add an "arch" tag
to every pkg for each architecture. Just like Gentoo and Frugal do. So
every i686 release will get // arch='i686' // tag.

Every package the x86_64 devs will have to port. If it is ok everything
stays like it is and we add // arch='i686' 'x86_64' // tag. If a 64bit
bugfix is needed we will do a pkg foo-1.1 so only the x86_64 binary will
be built. i686 fixes we could leave out if we are not affected but in
almost every case we follow and do our own foo-2 pkg.

Once we have a pkg marked with our arch x86_64 tag we can think about to
try to automatically build next release. But before moving to current
each time a 64bit dev will have to mark it for really working well.

Is that a way we can go?

So I don't see why we should wait any longer.

Things like crossbuilding with pacbuild and AUR we can add later.


More information about the arch-ports mailing list