On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 08:06:07AM -0500, Matt Housh wrote:
> On 07/08/12 03:28, Juergen Daubert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > now that glibc 2.16 is available a new version of CRUX seems to be
> > doable. But before we start working, we should consider some important,
> > upcoming changes besides the usual small updates and improvements [1].
> >
> >
> > a) Switch our main development platform to the x86_64 architecture [2],
> > the first version should be called CRUX 3.0.
>
> I am, unsurprisingly, all for switching to x86_64 as well as multilib.
> Installing glibc-32 as the only "out of the box" 32-bit package is how
> the unofficial ISO currently works so that's perfect for me.
>
> > b) Keep our repository layout as simple as possible
> >
> > At the moment we have official repos for i686 and overlay repos for
> > x86_64 and multilib on top of those. That's ok and the best way to do
> > it at the moment, but not really neat for the final solution.
> > I'd suggest to merge everything needed by a) into our core/opt/xorg
> > repos and add only _one_ additional repo, probably called 'lib32',
> > for the compatibility libraries.
>
> Personally I'd prefer to keep the collection separation intact for
> 32-bit ports, something like 'core-32/opt-32/xorg-32'. With that said
> I'll go with the majority opinion here, it's just my personal
> preference. I feel like a single 'lib32' collection could be messy.
Why? The reason for the different repos are more a question of access
privileges and in case of core what we define as "important, installation
required". In fact xorg is something we could easily integrate into opt.
The name of a port must be unique over all repos, so actually it dosn't
matter in which repo it lives. IMO the main advantage for one 'lib32' or
'compat32' over '{core,opt,xorg}-32' is easy administration and a
simpler repo layout.
>
> As an aside I'd suggest a different name than 'lib32' since there's no
> guarantee that only libs will be installed from it. Perhaps something
> like 'compat32' or similar?
Yeah, 'compat32' sounds good to me as well.
>
> > c) Create a final CRUX 2.7.2 for i686
>
> I have no strong opinion on this but it seems like a nice idea.
Looks like most maintainers are for a final i686 version, without
a clear decision either towards a 2.7.2 or to a all-new 2.8.
>
> > d) Device management
>
> Staying with udev 182 seems like the best current option to me. If we
> cannot separate future versions of udev from systemd then my second
> preference would be mdev.
Nice, everyone has the same opinion here. Let's stick with udev 182
for now.
regards
Juergen
_______________________________________________
crux-devel mailing list
crux-devel@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
