FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-04-2008, 01:30 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default State of community64

Hi,

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 There are currently over 100 x86_64 packages out-of-date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.


Eric

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 01-04-2008, 01:54 AM
"Varun Acharya"
 
Default State of community64

On Jan 4, 2008 8:00 AM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:


Hi,

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 There are currently over 100 x86_64 packages out-of-date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.

Eric

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Wow, Eric, I was about to type the exact same email. Thanks !

Varun
 
Old 01-04-2008, 09:56 AM
Firmicus
 
Default State of community64

Eric Belanger a écrit :


Hi,

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.


Eric



Hi Eric,

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
thanks!


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
http://ankabut.net/archlinux/scripts-for-arch-indep-community64.zip --
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.


Best,
F
 
Old 01-04-2008, 01:00 PM
Chess Griffin
 
Default State of community64

Eric Belanger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> Eric
>

Although I am not a TU, I would be happy to help build these packages as
I have an x86_64 machine. Once I have an updated PKGBUILD and binary
package, what would be the best way for me to get them to into the right
hands?

--
Chess Griffin
GPG Key: 0x0C7558C3
http://www.chessgriffin.com
 
Old 01-04-2008, 03:54 PM
Timm Preetz
 
Default State of community64

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:00 -0500, Chess Griffin wrote:
> Although I am not a TU, I would be happy to help build these packages as
> I have an x86_64 machine. Once I have an updated PKGBUILD and binary
> package, what would be the best way for me to get them to into the right
> hands?
>

Hmm, are you interested in becoming a TU? I think that would be the most
common practise.

I'm not sure whether other TU take binary packages by mail and publish
them.
 
Old 01-04-2008, 03:56 PM
Timm Preetz
 
Default State of community64

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 21:30 -0500, Eric Belanger wrote:
> 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.

I just became a TU and this is one main point I want to work on (as I
currently have only one package in community myself).

So expect some 64bit packages from me here.
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:06 PM
Chess Griffin
 
Default State of community64

Timm Preetz wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:00 -0500, Chess Griffin wrote:
>> Although I am not a TU, I would be happy to help build these packages as
>> I have an x86_64 machine. Once I have an updated PKGBUILD and binary
>> package, what would be the best way for me to get them to into the right
>> hands?
>>
>
> Hmm, are you interested in becoming a TU? I think that would be the most
> common practise.

Yes, most definitely. As I mentioned in my earlier introductory email,
I've been packaging for other operating systems for awhile now, but
would like to contribute to Arch. I have an x86_64 machine as well as
several i686 machines. I've been lurking here for 3-4 years and have
been building my own packages from time to time so I'm pretty
comfortable with the process.

>
> I'm not sure whether other TU take binary packages by mail and publish
> them.
>

I understand. I plan to adopt some orphaned PKGBUILDS in AUR, but in
the meantime it seemed like there was a need and so I thought I would
jump in and help.

--
Chess Griffin
GPG Key: 0x0C7558C3
http://www.chessgriffin.com
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:15 PM
"Ronald van Haren"
 
Default State of community64

It is really great to hear that you want to help out!
But as you mentioned you don't have any packages in the AUR. How do we know you qualify for the job ? Did you do anything Arch related ? Do you have any project you work on ?


Best would be to take a bunch of packages in the AUR and show that you are capable of creating and maintaining packages.

On Jan 4, 2008 6:06 PM, Chess Griffin <
chess@chessgriffin.com> wrote:
Timm Preetz wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:00 -0500, Chess Griffin wrote:

>> Although I am not a TU, I would be happy to help build these packages as
>> I have an x86_64 machine. *Once I have an updated PKGBUILD and binary
>> package, what would be the best way for me to get them to into the right

>> hands?
>>
>
> Hmm, are you interested in becoming a TU? I think that would be the most
> common practise.

Yes, most definitely. *As I mentioned in my earlier introductory email,

I've been packaging for other operating systems for awhile now, but
would like to contribute to Arch. *I have an x86_64 machine as well as
several i686 machines. *I've been lurking here for 3-4 years and have

been building my own packages from time to time so I'm pretty
comfortable with the process.

>
> I'm not sure whether other TU take binary packages by mail and publish

> them.
>

I understand. *I plan to adopt some orphaned PKGBUILDS in AUR, but in
the meantime it seemed like there was a need and so I thought I would
jump in and help.



again we really appreciate that you want to help . It is just we can't put binary packages in community that we have not created ourselves. All kind of bad things may happen one day if we start with that, as you may understand.


Ronald
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:19 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default State of community64

Chess Griffin schrieb:
> I understand. I plan to adopt some orphaned PKGBUILDS in AUR, but in
> the meantime it seemed like there was a need and so I thought I would
> jump in and help.

If you explain that you want to become a TU only to reduce the size of
the difflist, then IMO it wouldn't be necessary to have many packages in
AUR. That strongly depends on the TUs who are voting, but as the need of
some x86_64 builders is huge, you should be able to convince them. Any
opinions from TUs on this? (Note that I am not a TU anymore and thus my
opinion doesn't really count when it comes to voting you in or not)
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:21 PM
Timm Preetz
 
Default State of community64

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:06 -0500, Chess Griffin wrote:
> Timm Preetz wrote:
> > Hmm, are you interested in becoming a TU? I think that would be the most
> > common practise.
>
> Yes, most definitely.

Cool. So what are you waiting for, someone to sponsor you?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org