Pacman 2.8

iotc247 · 2004-07-04 15:28:12

Whats new in pacman 2.8.. And why were the servers changed to Server = ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/current/os/i686 What is the gain with more directories.. Just wanting to know..

kakabaratruskia · 2004-07-04 16:04:49

Here's the changelog
http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/

apeiro · 2004-07-04 22:57:51

iotc247 wrote:

Whats new in pacman 2.8.. And why were the servers changed to Server = ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/current/os/i686 What is the gain with more directories.. Just wanting to know..

The gain is the ability to cleanly host multiple architectures for each repository. So if and when we want to officially support platforms like i586 or amd64, we can stick them in /current/os/{i586,amd64}

That's also why pacman now supports an "Architecture" field in the package meta-data.

link · 2004-07-05 17:14:12

apeiro wrote:

iotc247 wrote:
Whats new in pacman 2.8.. And why were the servers changed to Server = ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/current/os/i686 What is the gain with more directories.. Just wanting to know..
The gain is the ability to cleanly host multiple architectures for each repository. So if and when we want to officially support platforms like i586 or amd64, we can stick them in /current/os/{i586,amd64}
That's also why pacman now supports an "Architecture" field in the package meta-data.

I would like to place my vote in for supporting i586. I have an older laptop, and I have to run Slackware on it, because its an i586 architecture. I would love to be able to put AL on it though.

sarah31 · 2004-07-05 17:41:05

well then you will have to find someone willing to build and maintain a i586 repo. actually you would have to get at least three people to maintain it. to make things easier these people should have true i586 computers with which to build stuff as there is too much tweaking necessary to build properly on a higher architecture.

dp · 2004-07-05 20:46:44

sarah31 wrote:

well then you will have to find someone willing to build and maintain a i586 repo. actually you would have to get at least three people to maintain it. to make things easier these people should have true i586 computers with which to build stuff as there is too much tweaking necessary to build properly on a higher architecture.

... and building on a i586 takes some more time, what slows the process down a little :-)

iotc247 · 2004-07-06 21:56:47

Why dont you have one of the i586 users do it then.. That way the distro is officially i686 and unofficially i585? I think that yoper does that or some other distro.. That way it wont take up devs time.

Dusty · 2004-07-06 22:02:49

Because no i586 users have volunteered? Various people including Sarah, Dennis, and Jason have done some stuff with i586, but nobodyis maintaining a port.

This is the cross-post I was referring to.

Dusty

iotc247 · 2004-07-06 22:04:16

ah ur wrong.. its not a cross post.. In the other i asked why files werent updated in both.. In here i asked the gain of the new dirctory structure.. See its diff..

dp · 2004-07-06 22:05:17

iotc247 wrote:

Why dont you have one of the i586 users do it then.. That way the distro is officially i686 and unofficially i585? I think that yoper does that or some other distro.. That way it wont take up devs time.

if you have a i586, you with pleasure would like to use such a repo, but maintain it with a i586 would be the same as running gentoo on your i586, because there is not that much people with a i586

Xentac · 2004-07-07 00:18:55

Currently I am running an experimental build daemon to keep i586 up to date. Within the next few days I hope to have a significant sized repo. Once it's become a decent size, I'll make it public and people using i586 can try it out.

sarah31 · 2004-07-07 01:20:10

dp and dusty,

i have an i586 router box. i was working on the i586 port until got frustrated with it and quit arch altogether. it was a really tough slog because few of the other developers were assisting in making it any easier (ie changing builds to use $CARCH and so forth). when i had found obvious bugs and was told they were not bugs that was it.

i would love to upgrade that box but there is no way in hell that i would go through all that work again. if it is not a developer supported archtecture then it is not worth the effort. i certainly hope that jason has a better go of it and required i586 specific build get their own repo (hell if you can have a weenie little nptl repo then whats stopping the few i586 specific packages from having their own repo)

dpb · 2004-07-07 06:36:08

Xentac wrote:

Currently I am running an experimental build daemon to keep i586 up to date. Within the next few days I hope to have a significant sized repo. Once it's become a decent size, I'll make it public and people using i586 can try it out.

I might be getting some i586 machines in a month or two for cheap.. So if you need some help with the i586 repo, I might be able to help then.

Kalidor · 2004-07-08 12:01:46

Xentac wrote:

[...] Within the next few days I hope to have a significant sized repo. Once it's become a decent size, I'll make it public and people using i586 can try it out.

I can't wait to try it on my old K6-2 desktop PC which is now more or less running with a mixture of Dennis' ISO, Sarah's packages and thing's I've compile myself from the ABS tree.

The problem with Arch is that it's so good that one does not want to use anything else anymore :!:

Kalidor

Arch Linux

#1 2004-07-04 15:28:12

Pacman 2.8

#2 2004-07-04 16:04:49

Re: Pacman 2.8

#3 2004-07-04 22:57:51

Re: Pacman 2.8

#4 2004-07-05 17:14:12

Re: Pacman 2.8

#5 2004-07-05 17:41:05

Re: Pacman 2.8

#6 2004-07-05 20:46:44

Re: Pacman 2.8

#7 2004-07-06 21:56:47

Re: Pacman 2.8

#8 2004-07-06 22:02:49

Re: Pacman 2.8

#9 2004-07-06 22:04:16

Re: Pacman 2.8

#10 2004-07-06 22:05:17

Re: Pacman 2.8

#11 2004-07-07 00:18:55

Re: Pacman 2.8

#12 2004-07-07 01:20:10

Re: Pacman 2.8

#13 2004-07-07 06:36:08

Re: Pacman 2.8

#14 2004-07-08 12:01:46

Re: Pacman 2.8

Board footer