[arch-ports] developing the (arch64) port

[Jason Chu]

> What I expect from the official archlinux developers side:
> 
> - Jason, I've come to the conclusion that a common cvs and common
> pkgbuilds are not good for getting the ports accepted. It would take
> us a long time until i686 developers will accept bloated pkgbuilds and
> preparing the "arch" tag would take its time. I still don't know why
> we should need the "arch" tag. I think it would be only to declare if
> the pkgbuild builds on a certain architecture. But as long as the
> packages are build by a packager and not automatically we don't
> really need it.

How many developers have complained about "bloated" pkgbuilds so far?

> - I disagree to your opinion that i686 packagers will ever be able to
> build packages for the ports using pacbuild. Every package needs a
> check and real installation on the destination architecture before
> you can upload it to the repos. So you always will need to have a few
> packagers more for each port to check packages and play with bugfixes.

Every package does need to be checked, but every package does not need
to be submitted by an x86_64 person.  You will always need packagers for
a specific port, but I think the i686 people can help out as well.

> - So I would prefer a separate svn/cvs for each port. Every port
> should be free to decide what packages to include into the port. This
> may not be as elegant as common cvs+pkgbuild but it's much easier to
> handle.

Easier to handle in the short run, sure.

> - No changes would be need to pacman/makepkg. Less work and less
> learning for all - more KISS for everyone. And it will not take more
> space on the servers or something like that.
> 
> 
> So setup a separate svn for arch64 and create new subrepos for x86_64
> and give a few of us access - we could start tomorrow!
> I know some arch64 devs dying to do real productiv stuff.
> 
> Otherwise as I told you more packagers will leave the port.
> 
> AndyRTR

Other developer's thoughts?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-ports/attachments/20060330/eeee9a53/attachment.pgp>