On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 06:57:19PM +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote: > > Yes. Keeping only one "compatibility overlay" repo would simplify things > > a lot. Currently mesa3d is the only xorg port that needs a specific > > x86_64 .footprint. I've been reluctant to do anything about this since > > it would require a new repo for just one port, with the current setup. > > Not sure if we both mean the same here. For me the lib32 repo is only > for additional ports that are build for multilib purpose. > Or in other words everything that is currently in one of the *-multilib > repositories and named like *-32. > > If you are talking about a overlay repo for i686, we should name it > differently. But one overlay repo for core/opt/xorg would be fine here > as well, given that we need one, see c) below. >
I think we are but maybe my example wasn't clear enough. I just used mesa3d to demonstrate the pain working with "many" repos containing a few ports. > > > > Hmm. I do think i686 deserves a new and up to date release (2.8 or 3.0, > > whatever). I'm not sure it's fair to all the i686 users to just drop a > > "sorry, no longer supported" bombshell without prior warning. As it has > > been for a couple of years now, x86_64 has been "unofficial" and > > "experimental", possibly scaring people away from x86_64 and to i686. > > Yeah, that's all right, but who should do all the work? I got the > impression that I'm the only maintainer still using i686 for the > daily work. After a finally switch to x86_64 I'm no longer able to > work on i686, at least not officially. Don't get me wrong, I'm not > basically against a all-new 2.8 for i686, but I'm open for suggestion > who/how we can do it. Fair enough :) > > Atleast we should ask around on the mailinglist if people are ready and > > ok with us "dropping" i686 in favor of x86_64. > > Sure, such a intrusive change should be announced as soon as possible. > > > I think the future of udev is a bit uncertain at the moment. We are not > > the only ones that dislike systemd. Staying with a "stable" (182?) udev > > version > > might be the best bet for now. If major issues would appear (security > > etc.) it should be not too hard finding patches since few distros are as > > up to date with upstream as we are. > > > > Switch to systemd? over my dead body! :) > > > > mdev could work. But you do lose features that one's gotten used to over > > the years (autoload of modules, xorg, etc). I currently use mdev on my > > desktop > > and, although it does the job it's supposed to do, it did feel like > > stepping backwards in time. It is also possible packages might break > > during the lifetime of 2.8 (or 3.0). xorg-xf86-input-evdev breaks in > > recent versions without udev. Perhaps being a bit conservative here and > > stick with a working udev version is the safest bet? > > Yeah, sticking with udev 182 for now would be the most conservative > but good working solution. > Btw, Debian and Ubuntu are still using udev 175 ;) rhel is using 147 or something like that :) -- Fredrik Rinnestam _______________________________________________ crux-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
