Hello everybody, I hope I can contribute somehow too. I have one i686 machine running Arch, but I think it would be easier to test on a VM. And I don't mind if you decide to use github or something else.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Félix Faisant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi list, > > Le 2 févr. 2017 à 00:01, Erich Eckner <[email protected]> a écrit : > >>>> we took a step forward and now we have: >>>> - a name: archlinux32 >>>> - a domain: archlinux32.org >>>> - a collaboration on github.com: https://github.com/archlinux32 >>> >>> How were they chosen, and by who ? Did I miss something ? >>> I've nothing against though. >> >> I didn't want to be bold, but I just took initiative. Nothing of this >> has to be final. > > Of course. Maybe we could just wait a day or two for interested people > to give their opinion before going further. > >>> Wouldn't be more appropriate to setup a git and to keep an infrastructure >>> closer to Arch dev's one ? >> >> In the end, one could think of cgit on our own server totally >> disconnected from github, but then we'd probably reinvent the wheel for >> tickets, discussions, and the like. > > Well, it's quite easy to setup and would not be difficult to maintain. > I think it's more a question of efficiency. And indeed github could be > appropriate for such low volume of work. But I don't use github > so I can't tell. > >> Our case is closer to archlinuxarm than archlinux, so it seems to make >> more sense to copy from them. > > Even if the vast majority of PKGBUILDs and tool would be kept synced with > Arch's ones ? Again, I didn't look close enough to archlinuxarm to tell... > >>>> so we can brainstorm and sort out details. >>> >>> Isn't it the very purpose of this list to brainstorm and sort out details ? >> >> true, but how detailed should the discussion herein become? Once we have >> a platform for git, tracking issues and discussing code lines, shouldn't >> we switch to that one? I thought, github would be a good platform for >> that - at least to start with. > > I think it's appropriated for per-package discussions or anything like that, > but for the moment, it's more a general/technical discussion rather than > a detailed one. > >> Or with other words: City-busz just put a >> proposal for a build-system on: >> https://github.com/archlinux32/builder/wiki/Build-system >> (it's readable for anyone, I hope) > > Great. Seems good for me. > Could we precise the signing strategy ? > > Moreover, as building is done on a single machine, we thus need a decent > one. I'm not really aware of the needed power. What would be the frequency > on builds ? > > Finally, it's quite obvious we will keep separate repos, right ? > > ---- > Félix Faisant - PGP : ce67 00ae c4c3 2446 032c f89a 4e4f a7af f464 8355 > > > _______________________________________________ > arch-ports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports _______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports
