Eric Belanger a écrit :
I would to bring to your attention the current state of the x86_64
community repo. There are currently over 100 x86_64 packages
out-of-date compared to the i686 ones
(http://dev.archlinux.org/~andyrtr/pkg_diff.html) . Out of curiosity,
how many TUs with a x86_64 machine are active? More precisely, are you
checking the package diff list on a more or less daily basis to keep
the two repo in sync? I have the impression that I was pretty much the
only one doing that in the last few months.
To help keeping the x86_64 repo in sync, I would recommend any TU
without an x86_64 machine to ask Aaron for access on his x86_64 build
machine. I'm not sure to what degree the packages can be tested on the
build machine but several devs and TU are already using it.
Nonetheless, if the build machine would be used, at the very least,
for arch-independent packages (e.g. i18n, docs pkg), perl and python
modules and non-critical packages (e.g. games, xfce-svn plugin, etc)
that would reduce the workload for the x86_64 TUs.
I don't mind helping out with the occasional x86_64 build or with
problems/bugs only on x86_64. But would like to reduce that to a
minimum as it's quite time-consuming.
First, with respect to your previous posting: I am sure all TUs will
share my sentiment that you have done great work as a TU. So we all say
As a relatively new TU who runs Arch32, I must confess I have until now
relied on other TUs to bring my pkgs to community64. Now I decided it
was time to ask Aaron for access to his x86_64 build machine, which I
just did. Since I maintain numerous architecture-independant packages I
have also decided to modify the makepkg and communitypkg scripts (which
I saved as makepkg64 and communitypkg64) in order to generate and commit
architecture-indenpendant pkgs for x86_64 on my i686 machine (this was
quite a trivial thing to do). I have just tested it with
ttf-linux-libertine and ttf-inconsolata in [community] and it seems my
uploads and commits were successful (I'd be glad if someone could
confirm this!). So at least for such cases I won't need to access
Aaron's machine. My scripts are available under
MAKE SURE though to ONLY use them on arch-independant packages!!!
But I am really hoping to have a more flexible mechanism to handle
non-binary packages with makepkg and pacman. There have been discussions
about this in the past, namely to have the possibility to have arch=all
in the PKGBUILDs, so that the generated packages can be commited for
both i686 and x86_64 at the same time. Roman told me he add submitted a
patch for pacman to precisely deal with this. I am looking forward to it.