[arch-ports] going to start a new ArchLinux?

[Alessandro Calorì]

2007/5/9, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de>:
> we from the x86_64 port are only 2 guys rebuilding and maintaining
> ~2500 packages. we have not the power and possebility to change
> anything important.

I didn't imagine you were just two guys keeping up this work. How
could you manage all that work (and in such a good way)?

> 1) improve the infrastructure and increase the manpower of developers
> and packagers for all supported dramatically. we are trying that for
> over a year now without any noticable real success.

That's a hard task to achieve because becoming a TU is really hard
(Arch user from three months, keeping up packages on AUR for a long
time...).

> 2) dramatically lower the work(=less binary packages) for the devs to
> give them time for making packages of a better quality. doubt came up
> as Arch should remain a supported binary distribution in most parts.

This would not respect the "Arch way" to be a bleeding edge distro...

> 3) new goals for ArchLinux: accept to have not well tested packages
> when we want to keep the update speed or accept a lower speed on update
> to get new packages better tested.

In this case the differences from the i686 distro would increase,
making the development more "chaotic"...

> 4) split the goals we have! let's have one more conservative stable
> rolling rellease tree for higher quality and one on the bleading edge
> front accepting it might break sometime.

That's exactly what we have right now!

The stable and extra repositories should contain only "stable"
packages but in Arch the term "stable" assume a custom meaning:
packages that compile, don't block and don't give major troubles using
them. An example: GNOME and Esound daemon, considered "stable" either
for i686 or x86-64, don't work togheter because ESD locks up
gnome-panel during start-up (you need to manually restart the service
to unlock it); in many other distros this is not considerable
"stable".

> there is only one working other distribution based on pacman out
> claiming having a stable tree. I've talked to several devs and users
> and they can imagine that a stable distribution by ArchLinux can become
> a successor.

I agree.

> Everybody who wants to help out or has something to say may post
> here or contact me on one of my instant messenger accounts you find in
> the forum.

I would like to help (again) either in Arch project or out of it. If
you need, just tell me where and when! ;)

> AndyRTR

Bye, Alessandro.