Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 21:48:39 Karolina Lindqvist wrote: Yes, now I have them unofficially on ftp://archi586.ath.cx/archi586/ The whole thing is not completely ready and polished yet, and a booting ISO USB-stick image will also come a little bit later. But it is working, and the server machine runs archi586 on a VIA ITX. Excellent effort. What about the source packages, are they available ? --markc
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
onsdag 26 december 2007 skrev Mark Constable: What about the source packages, are they available ? --markc It will come, I just have to figure out how. Karolina
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
söndag 16 december 2007 skrev Mister Dobalina: The point is that the developers don't want to get a bunch of bug reports for things that might be i586-specific problems. They are saying we've tested the package that is built using this PKGBUILD on i686 and/or x86_64, and if you have a problem with it let us know, but if you use this PKGBUILD to build for some other architecture, you're on your own. cut Well, that's exactly what it means now. But the devs don't want to go to the work of doing that on i586, because arch is an i686/x86_64-optimized distribution, and has never claimed to be tried and working on i586. Is that the opinion of all the developers? If it is so, I have to consider forking off my own distribution based on archlinux. It simplifies some things, since I can deviate and don't have to care for policies and so on. But forks can create extra trouble in the future, and it always splits up human resources. Anyway, I already have archi586 running, and currently I am mostly spending time with bugs in archlinux, and not so much with the i586 implementation. Karolina
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:00:19 +0100 Karolina Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I am going to maintain this, for my own usage, for quite a while now, since I have a machine that is going to run it. It appears that a few others also quietly maintain archi586 the same way. Karolina Do you want to share these packages? It can be very useful for who have a VIA chipset. Ubuntu has break my patience :) -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User pgpmQouqdhKyG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
I agree with Karolina. Karolina I would like to encourage you to put a repository up for VIA C3, I was interested in lowarch http://www.lowarch.org/ and I tested it, but it seems dead/dormant. I would like to have an archlinux version installable on a C3 so If you need help (cpu power for compiling, testing, help with scripting, etc) ask me and I'll see what I can do for you. Massimiliano On 12/15/07, Karolina Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lördag 15 december 2007 skrev Dan McGee: The arch= tag indicates that we, as the Arch Linux developers, have successfully built a certain package on the given architecture. Since we do not build for i586, we cannot make this claim and so do not add this architecture to the arch= line. That is allright, but why abort makepkg on non-authorized architectures? Better to give a warning that this build is unauthorized, unsupported, or whatever, instead of aborting. To insert the i586 tag, to make the package build, just defeats the purpose as you describe it. Sharing that package might make others believe that it it is authorized by the archlinux developers. Karolina
Re: [arch-general] problem compiling for i586 with new makepkg
On Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 09:43 Karolina Lindqvist wrote: That is allright, but why abort makepkg on non-authorized architectures? It seems that makepkg test only right or wrong because a arch=(aai686 aax86_64 brings the same break. I'm not a dev but from my view this is too strict. On the other side only a warning at the beginning is too simple because it can get overseen very easy but i think a warning at the end will be read in the most cases. Perhaps everybody can lives with this suggestion better than with the actual situation. See you, Attila
