Bring ARM into the fold?

BluePyTheDeer_ · 2024-08-05 17:08:53

I know, but MAIN Arch.

solskogen · 2024-08-06 06:09:52

I don't think you'll notice any difference if it becomes a Arch Linux port.

soloturn · 2024-09-07 16:01:03

ugjka wrote:

Allan wrote:
We have had an RFC approved that outlines the process for getting a new architecture to be official, but there has been no-one step up and start the process for any new architecture. It is as if no-one is really that interested in doing the work needed.
Perhaps when the new SnapdraggonX laptops start popping up in dev's laps someone will step up!

@allan am i allowed to start such an rfc? who could help me with it? am using a snapdragon x now and then - and it has *cough* windows at the moment. for aur packages i am responsible i at least put arch=('x86_64' 'aarch64') in, like for the new rust based cosmic desktop: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/ … c-comp-git . but for the official package this gets dropped again: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … type=heads

Lone_Wolf · 2024-09-08 10:48:56

The RFC has been accepted and describes the process needed to get a port into archlinux .

I suggest you start with reading it thoroughly to get an idea of the work needed, https://rfc.archlinux.page/0032-arch-linux-ports/ .

bschnei · 2025-01-20 19:16:38

In case those still following this thread missed a related discussion on the aur-general mailing list: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/li … IKL6HLHPZ/

Bert Peters wrote:

Packages in the AUR should be useful on Arch Linux, which is currently an x86_64-only distribution. Software that doesn't work on that architecture, therefore shouldn't be in the AUR, as it is not for Arch Linux, even if it may be useful for Arch Linux derivatives.

Valentin Hăloiu wrote:

In that case I think it would be helpful to call this out explicitly in the AUR submission guidelines...As for my "aarch64" packages, I guess I'll just need to find (or create) a different repository for them.

RFC 32 wrote:

The past has shown, that if expertise and domain knowledge can not be kept with Arch Linux, alternative projects such as Arch Linux ARM are created. If these projects are not merged back into the default distribution at some point and are undermaintained, they go defunct over time.

If the argument goes:

- Arch Linux derivatives use what the Arch Linux project creates, maintains, and distributes freely.
- Their communities do not contribute to the Arch Linux project.

Then it does indeed follow that there should be clear boundaries about what is and is not supported and maintained by Arch Linux. In other words, I can support Bert's decision on the boundaries for the AUR. However, the discussion on aur-general as well as comments here make a pretty compelling case that the current boundaries are not clear.

In my previous posts here, I have specifically called out the confusion created by allowing a project that is technically not "Arch Linux" to use the name "Arch Linux ARM" (and related branding).

To be clear, I have not, and am not, suggesting that the Arch Linux ARM project have to stop using Arch Linux branding. Nor have I suggested that the project must be integrated into Arch Linux. I don't know enough about the problems to start proposing solutions. I'm just pointing out (again) that the situation contributes to a lack of clarity around how anyone that would be interested in contributing to an Arch Linux Ports for ARM should proceed.

As I noted in my last post, the Ports RFC says to create another RFC. The RFC readme says anyone can file one, but

At least one Arch Linux Staff member has to support the RFC and must be willing to work on it in a joint effort with the contributor.

In this thread, I count at least three occasions people have expressed interest in being a part of the solution--not just whining and expecting handouts. I can't speak for others, but nobody from the Arch Linux Staff has reached out to me. Should I email staff randomly? Post on a mailing list instead?

Again, my point is that it is not clear how anyone interested in helping should really proceed. Just repeating over and over again that anyone interested should "read the RFC" is going in circles. We've read the RFC--what is the *next* step? Where is the *Arch Linux Staff* member that is going to step up and has the authority to figure out what to do with Arch Linux ARM?

Last edited by bschnei (2025-01-20 19:18:45)

Lone_Wolf · 2025-01-21 10:19:38

It seems I didn't put the correct link to the final version of the RFC ,
it is at https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … -ports.rst

I don't know who the devs are that maintain the existing arch linux arm distro but they don't seem interested in becoming an official arch linux Port .

If that's correct , a new port needs to be started .

In Specfiication > Maintainers of the RFC there's a very important line :

In case external volunteers are interested in starting a port, they need to be onboarded as package maintainers to the Arch Linux team first.

You appear to be an 'external volunteer' so you have to become a package maintainer .

See https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Packag … Maintainer? .

bschnei · 2025-01-21 19:00:21

Thanks Lone_Wolf! It sounds like Arch needs more staff/package maintainers then as the first step. I maintain a few packages on the AUR, but also several outside because they are device-specific ARM kernels. My preference is to contribute the work I've done back to this community rather than other distributions. If there are maintainers interested in sponsoring me, please reach out.

Don Coyote · 2025-01-25 19:27:58

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I don't know who the devs are that maintain the existing arch linux arm distro but they don't seem interested in becoming an official arch linux Port .

And yet they are interested in using the official logo and name?

Lone_Wolf · 2025-01-26 11:19:45

Archlinux arm was started around 2009 . In the first years many people were involved with both archlinux & archlinux arm.
The permission to use the archlinux name & logo was given then.

Over time the distance between the 2 increased. A few years ago archlinux staff looked into ways to improve archlinux including adapting its infrastructure to allow multiple architectures.

In may 2024 the RFC dealing with integrating ports was accepted, sofar no port devs have come forward to start the process (as far as I know).

Arch Linux

#51 2024-08-05 17:08:53

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#52 2024-08-06 06:09:52

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#53 2024-09-07 16:01:03

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#54 2024-09-08 10:48:56

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#55 2025-01-20 19:16:38

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#56 2025-01-21 10:19:38

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#57 2025-01-21 19:00:21

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#58 2025-01-25 19:27:58

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

#59 2025-01-26 11:19:45

Re: Bring ARM into the fold?

Board footer