[arch-ports] [i686] Next steps
petunov at gmail.com
Thu Feb 2 07:52:49 UTC 2017
I hope I can contribute somehow too. I have one i686 machine running
Arch, but I think it would be easier to test on a VM. And I don't mind
if you decide to use github or something else.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Félix Faisant <xcodexif at xif.fr> wrote:
> 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:
>> (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
> arch-ports mailing list
> arch-ports at archlinux.org
More information about the arch-ports