[arch-ports] developing the (arch64) port

ganja.guru ganja.guru at airtelbroadband.in
Fri Mar 31 05:36:22 EST 2006


>
>> 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.
>>     
>
>   

> I personally don't see a big problem with the so called "bloated" 
> PKGBUILD's. Most PKGBUILDs will be clean cause they compile on arch64 
> without any changes anyway, and a few PKGBUILDS with a few extra lines 
> here and there shouldn't bother anyone, I think.

>> - 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.
>>     
>
>   
I think having a separate svn/cvs for the ports is too tedious as we 
have to keep going back and forth when checking out PKGBUILD's for those 
difficult packages. Integrating everything into a single cvs should save 
a lot of time.


Varun "ganja_guru" Acharya
> _______________________________________________
> arch-ports mailing list
> arch-ports at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-ports
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-ports/attachments/20060331/547d7e0d/attachment.htm>


More information about the arch-ports mailing list