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

[Jason Chu]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 05:47:13AM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> 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

At this point, the least number of things changing means not changing
version control.

Csup is (from what I understand) a fine replacement for cvsup.  What will
probably happen then is that i686 will stick with cvsup and x86_64 will use
csup.  The error message will be updated to display the proper name for
each in the abs script.

Jason

-- 
If you understand, things are just as they are.  If you do not understand,
things are just as they are.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-ports/attachments/20060321/260942b9/attachment.pgp>