x86-64 builds?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

x86-64 builds?

Dan McGee
I know we have been making a lot of changes recently, and I don't know
if anyone on the 64-bit side has built and tested pacman3 in a while.
Anyone on this list using 64-bit?

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Pierre Schmitz
Am Freitag, 2. Februar 2007 18:59:14 schrieb Dan McGee:
> I know we have been making a lot of changes recently, and I don't know
> if anyone on the 64-bit side has built and tested pacman3 in a while.
> Anyone on this list using 64-bit?

I coulkd test it on Arch64. There are two problems with your PKGBUILD:
* You should do an anonymous cvs-checkout
* It wants to overwrite the man-pages of the current pacman-version:

error: the following file conflicts were found:
  pacman-rc: /usr/man/man8/makepkg.8.gz: exists in filesystem
  pacman-rc: /usr/man/man8/pacman.8.gz: exists in filesystem


--
http://www.archlinux.de

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Dan McGee
On 2/3/07, Pierre Schmitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 2. Februar 2007 18:59:14 schrieb Dan McGee:
> > I know we have been making a lot of changes recently, and I don't know
> > if anyone on the 64-bit side has built and tested pacman3 in a while.
> > Anyone on this list using 64-bit?
>
> I coulkd test it on Arch64. There are two problems with your PKGBUILD:
> * You should do an anonymous cvs-checkout
> * It wants to overwrite the man-pages of the current pacman-version:
>
> error: the following file conflicts were found:
>   pacman-rc: /usr/man/man8/makepkg.8.gz: exists in filesystem
>   pacman-rc: /usr/man/man8/pacman.8.gz: exists in filesystem
>

That would be nice, thanks.

That PKGBUILD up there was more than anything just put there by Aaron
so other people could see how it was built. The anonymous thing is an
easy fix; the man pages I didn't find so important so I just deleted
the originals. At some point we are going to have pacman replace
pacman anyway, so the PKGBUILD doesn't need to be rock solid.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Aaron Griffin
On 2/3/07, Dan McGee <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That PKGBUILD up there was more than anything just put there by Aaron
> so other people could see how it was built. The anonymous thing is an
> easy fix; the man pages I didn't find so important so I just deleted
> the originals. At some point we are going to have pacman replace
> pacman anyway, so the PKGBUILD doesn't need to be rock solid.

Yeah, the PKGBUILD is really there because I went through the process
of trying to move everything to a *3 version to allow side-by-side
tests, and didn't want everyone else to do the same.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Pierre Schmitz
In reply to this post by Dan McGee
Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2007 16:10:12 schrieb Dan McGee:
> That would be nice, thanks.

OK, I just compiled it and it seems to work on Arch64. Are there any special
test-cases I should try out? Is it save to install and remove packages on
a "productive" system?

Are there any big changes to makepkg and co or are they still the same (and I
do not need testing them)?


--
http://www.archlinux.de

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Dan McGee
On 2/6/07, Pierre Schmitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2007 16:10:12 schrieb Dan McGee:
> > That would be nice, thanks.
>
> OK, I just compiled it and it seems to work on Arch64. Are there any special
> test-cases I should try out? Is it save to install and remove packages on
> a "productive" system?

I've had no problems. The worst that has happened is a segfault, but
never any DB corruption. It is getting more stable by the day.

> Are there any big changes to makepkg and co or are they still the same (and I
> do not need testing them)?

They have changed quite a bit; however, nothing there SHOULD be
architecture dependent. You will notice that all PKGBUILDs now require
a arch=() array, which right now could contain i686 and/or x86_64. The
configuration file for makpkg.conf has also changed. In our actual
release, we will find a way to notify users of changes like this.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Roman Kyrylych
2007/2/6, Dan McGee <[hidden email]>:

> On 2/6/07, Pierre Schmitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 3. Februar 2007 16:10:12 schrieb Dan McGee:
> > > That would be nice, thanks.
> >
> > OK, I just compiled it and it seems to work on Arch64. Are there any special
> > test-cases I should try out? Is it save to install and remove packages on
> > a "productive" system?
>
> I've had no problems. The worst that has happened is a segfault, but
> never any DB corruption. It is getting more stable by the day.
>
> > Are there any big changes to makepkg and co or are they still the same (and I
> > do not need testing them)?
>
> They have changed quite a bit; however, nothing there SHOULD be
> architecture dependent. You will notice that all PKGBUILDs now require
> a arch=() array, which right now could contain i686 and/or x86_64. The
> configuration file for makpkg.conf has also changed. In our actual
> release, we will find a way to notify users of changes like this.

Also note that all packages generated with new makepkg have
-i686/-x86_64 suffix, so you cannot use old gensync and pacman 2 to
install them via your local repo.

--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Aaron Griffin
On 2/6/07, Roman Kyrylych <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Also note that all packages generated with new makepkg have
> -i686/-x86_64 suffix, so you cannot use old gensync and pacman 2 to
> install them via your local repo.

However, you can still use makepkg3 and rename the file without the
-ARCH extension, and pacman2 will still install them fine.  I wouldn't
recommend this course of action on the official repos though.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Andreas Radke
In reply to this post by Dan McGee
> I know we have been making a lot of changes recently, and I don't know
> if anyone on the 64-bit side has built and tested pacman3 in a while.
> Anyone on this list using 64-bit?
>
> -Dan

I'm reading here but don't have much time for playing with it these
days. Tell me when the true testing begins so I can switch over using
it for daily pkg building.

Two small questions:

1) Do you recommend or is it required to mark the arch with "" around
as Jan is adding it always - arch=("i686") or simply arch=(i686)?

2) Will we get an option to makepkg.conf to set the desired compression
gz/bz2 (+ compression level?). I still think it would make sense to use
bzip though it eats more cpu time.

AndyRTR

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Dan McGee
On 2/11/07, Andreas Radke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm reading here but don't have much time for playing with it these
> days. Tell me when the true testing begins so I can switch over using
> it for daily pkg building.
>
> Two small questions:
>
> 1) Do you recommend or is it required to mark the arch with "" around
> as Jan is adding it always - arch=("i686") or simply arch=(i686)?

Either works, first of all. But in our documentation we are trying to
be pretty consistent with saying arch=('i686').

> 2) Will we get an option to makepkg.conf to set the desired compression
> gz/bz2 (+ compression level?). I still think it would make sense to use
> bzip though it eats more cpu time.

With 3.0, not yet. However, this is quite doable, and it is probably
worth implementing even if we don't switch the default.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: x86-64 builds?

Aaron Griffin
In reply to this post by Andreas Radke
On 2/11/07, Andreas Radke <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2) Will we get an option to makepkg.conf to set the desired compression
> gz/bz2 (+ compression level?). I still think it would make sense to use
> bzip though it eats more cpu time.

Just a side note.  Even if this IS configurable, I don't really think
that one architecture should have different compression than another.
At this point in time, i686 uses gzip, so other architectures should
use the same.

A change here should be global, not local to one section.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev