[aur-general] Community64 status again...

Eric Belanger belanger at ASTRO.UMontreal.CA
Thu May 1 12:18:11 EDT 2008

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ronald van Haren wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com> 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.
> By now everyone should be able to use Aaron's build machine. Only for
> large package groups it does not work out, and a separate builder must
> be found. Not building packages for both architectures is just plain
> lazy (at least for new packages). For packages already in community I
> can understand I can understand people have some time constraints.
> Maybe for them it is better to drop some packages to unsupported or
> give the maintainership over to another TU.
> That said, I think sometimes you guys build the x86_64 package too
> fast (well in a way it does increase your workload where it is not
> needed). For example, last 1.5 day I was not able to connect to the
> build box, but now I can again I see the package has already been
> build. Well, most likely these things don't happen very often so it
> should not be that big of a deal.

If the x86_64 build machine is not available, you might want to notify the 
othe TU via the TU IRC channel or this ML (if these problems happens 
rarely). The TU with x86_64 system don't use the build machine so they 
don't know its status. Another thing to do would be to have a liste of TU 
who needs to have their packages built for x86_64 and only build these 
TU's packages.

> ps. When counting the diffs I hope you don't count the e17 packages
> (because those are cvs versions and will most likely never be build on
> the same day as they are not build by the same person). Flock also has
> no sources released after the 1.1.1 release, whereas binaries are
> released up until 1.1.3.

You can build cvs package with the same version. Just use:
makepkg --holdver

BTW, is there anyone interested in building the x86_64 packages for e17? I 
am supposed to be doing it but it's time consuming and inconvenient for me 
to build and test. I will likely skip some updates in the future wich I 
already did. I could update it this time.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the aur-general mailing list