[arch-ports] What's needed for an official port

[Andreas Radke]

Jason Chu schrieb:
> I've been asked a couple of times about what the port people can do to make
> their ports official.  What I'm trying to do here is list all of the things
> that must be done before we can have our first official port.
>
> A few things need to happen on the Arch Linux developer side:
> - makepkg needs support for arch=()
> - the db-* scripts need to be updated for multiple architectures
> - we need more CVS tags*
> - the pkgrel-<arch> changes need to be implemented in makepkg and gensync**
>
> A few things need to happen on the port side as well:
> - a good number of packages that can be easily integrated into the official
> PKGBUILDs (which means changes are marked).  I'd even go so far as to say
> that most packages have to be rebuilt against the merged PKGBUILDs.
> - a working install cd
> - pacbuild nodes***
>
> Is there anything I've missed?
>
> Jason
>
> *: We don't need to make them, just figure out what they will be
> **: Should this one be in there?  Strictly speaking, it's not necessary,
> but it would really help cut down on unnecessary updates for other arches
> ***: Also not strictly necessary, but I think it'd help for non-x86_64
> developers to try building their changes on x86_64.
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch-ports mailing list
> arch-ports at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports
>   
What about the cvs/svn/darcs question? Arch64 now uses svn and we only
have the cvs package, not cvsup. But we have csup, a cvsup replacemnt:
http://www.mu.org/~mux/csup.html

Maybe someone can summarize all pros and cons for the various options.

Andy