[arch-ports] [i686] Next steps

[Polichronucci]

Hello list,

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:51:35AM +0100, Félix Faisant 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
> >>>
I thought of the same name so obviously I agree on that. 
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
Giving people some time is essential in opinion for a community project
to function. But again its nice to see people take initiative.
>
> >> 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.
>
I have no problem at all for using GitHub. We could also set up a
private GitLab somewhere. Since the GitHub organisation is already setup
I would go with that.
> 
> > 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...
>
ArchLinuxARM is a good place to get ideas on how to get this project
going, but the PKGBUILDs and the tools as already mentioned above will
be close to the Arch way.
>
> >>> 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.
>
I agree. We should mainly use the list so everybody can follow. IRC is
good as well but no archive, so its better for problem solving that
actual planning.
> 
> > 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 ?
>
>From the official Arch ones? Yes, that's what I picked up.

-- 
nick at discloud.eu
GPG: 0x7E8A06A6C80574E4