[arch-ports] [i686] Next steps

Félix Faisant xcodexif at xif.fr
Wed Feb 1 23:51:35 UTC 2017

Hi list,

Le 2 févr. 2017 à 00:01, Erich Eckner <arch at eckner.net> a écrit :

>>> we took a step forward and now we have:
>>> - a name: archlinux32
>>> - a domain: archlinux32.org
>>> - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32
>> How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ?
>> I've nothing against though.
> I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this
> has to be final.

Of course. Maybe we could just wait a day or two for interested people
to give their opinion before going further.

>> Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure
>> closer to Arch dev's one ?
> In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally
> disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for
> tickets, discussions, and the like.

Well, it's quite easy to setup and would not be difficult to maintain.
I think it's more a question of efficiency. And indeed github could be
appropriate for such low volume of work. But I don't use github
so I can't tell.

> Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make
> more sense to copy from them.

Even if the vast majority of PKGBUILDs and tool would be kept synced with
Arch's ones ? Again, I didn't look close enough to archlinuxarm to tell...

>>> so we can brainstorm and sort out details.
>> Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ?
> true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have
> a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't
> we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for
> that - at least to start with.

I think it's appropriated for per-package discussions or anything like that,
but for the moment, it's more a general/technical discussion rather than
a detailed one.

> Or with other words: City-busz just put a
> proposal for a build-system on:
> https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system
> (it's readable for anyone, I hope)

Great. Seems good for me.
Could we precise the signing strategy ?

Moreover, as building is done on a single machine, we thus need a decent
one. I'm not really aware of the needed power. What would be the frequency
on builds ?

Finally, it's quite obvious we will keep separate repos, right ?

Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-ports/attachments/20170202/42ac334f/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-ports mailing list