Hello list, On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:51:35AM +0100, Félix Faisant 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 > >>> I thought of the same name so obviously I agree on that. > >> > >> 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. > Giving people some time is essential in opinion for a community project to function. But again its nice to see people take initiative. > > >> 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. > I have no problem at all for using GitHub. We could also set up a private GitLab somewhere. Since the GitHub organisation is already setup I would go with that. > > > 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... > ArchLinuxARM is a good place to get ideas on how to get this project going, but the PKGBUILDs and the tools as already mentioned above will be close to the Arch way. > > >>> 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. > I agree. We should mainly use the list so everybody can follow. IRC is good as well but no archive, so its better for problem solving that actual planning. > > > 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 ? > >From the official Arch ones? Yes, that's what I picked up.
-- [email protected] GPG: 0x7E8A06A6C80574E4 _______________________________________________ arch-ports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-ports
