[aur-general] Community64 status again...
mcrae_allan at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 29 01:40:25 EDT 2008
Allan McRae wrote:
> Hi TUs,
> I know I keep on about this but I just had a look at the pkg_diff page
>  and I noticed there has been a big increase in the number of
> differences between the i686 and x86_64 community repos.
> To put some numbers to this, since the 17th there has been 11 packages
> added to i686 but not x86_64 and another 29 packages have been updated
> in i686 but not x86_64. We are now up to 190 differences between the
> architectures. Taking away the lib32 packages and the known build
> failures  leaves about 80 differences that can be fixed. That is
> about double the amount in the extra repo and it has more packages in
> How do we fix this? Here is what I propose:
> 1. If you add a new package to community and can only build for one
> repo then you must post a message to the list asking for someone to
> build it for the other. I.e. if you are bringing the package to
> community, then you are responsible for getting it in both arches.
> 2. Everyone who does not have access to a x86_64 machine, should get
> access to the build machine by contacting Aaron.
> 3. If it is inconvenient to build x86_64 packages on the build box
> (e.g. because of having to wait on deps to sync) then you should
> arrange with one of the x86_64 using TU's to do the building for you.
> What do TU's think about these ideas? I'd like to get some official
> guidelines out there so I can prod consistent offenders (you know who
> you are....)!
>  http://dev.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html
>  http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community64_Status
Bump.... So no TUs have any opinions on the above "guidelines"?
The only response I saw to this thread was Partition building some of
the missing x86_64 packages. Neverth has done some lately too. So a
big cheer for those guys! (and of course any others I have missed)
More information about the aur-general