[aur-general] Community64 status again...

[Allan McRae]

Allan McRae wrote:
> Hi TUs,
>
> I know I keep on about this but I just had a look at the pkg_diff page 
> [1] 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 [2] leaves about 80 differences that can be fixed. That is 
> about double the amount in the extra repo and it has more packages in 
> total...
>
> 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....)!
>
> Regards,
> Allan
>
> [1] http://dev.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html
> [2] 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)

Allan