Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Removal of Arch [community] (Read 2795 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #15 –
Quote from: gripped – on
..........
https://gitea.artixlinux.org.
It's been reorganised.
The links on https://packages.artixlinux.org will need updating at some point
Just search directly on gitea
thanks, is there any way to search for an exact package name? A search for runit gives a very large number of hits. I tried putting a space at the front, but it seems as though it's stripped out.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #16 –
Quote from: replabrobin – on
thanks, is there any way to search for an exact package name? A search for runit gives a very large number of hits. I tried putting a space at the front, but it seems as though it's stripped out.
Here's a workaround. Go straight to the package's repo page directly: https://gitea.artixlinux.org/packages/$PKG

Every package is in this group now, which makes locating packages easier.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #17 –
is the migration over?

if it isnt could you make a news post when it is fully completed

i would like to know when i can remove [galaxy] and only have [world]
 

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #18 –
It is, as far as the repo structure is concerned. Our packaging tools are still being worked on, a few rough edges to address.

Don't touch any repos yet; [universe] will probably move into [galaxy] and still not decided what will become itself. An announcement will be made in due time.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #19 –
So while this migration is going should users report warnings like
Code: [Select]
docker-runit: local (20220411-2) is newer than world (20180314-4)

these warnings will not impact users much. So my concern is would report of such warnings put extra unnecessary pressure on dev team. 

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #20 –
Quote from: suren – on
So while this migration is going should users report warnings like
Code: [Select]
docker-runit: local (20220411-2) is newer than world (20180314-4)

these warnings will not impact users much. So my concern is would report of such warnings put extra unnecessary pressure on dev team. 
Look at the context.
If you had
Code: [Select]
docker-runit: local (20220411-2) is newer than world (20220411-1)
then probably not.
But in your example the package in world looks to be four years older than your version so maybe worth reporting ?

I'd be wondering where 20220411-2 came from and where it's gone.

But if you look at the commits you can see it already been sorted. https://gitea.artixlinux.org/packages/docker-runit/commits/branch/master
Possibly due to your report ?

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Dudemanguy – on
Quote from: phoenix_king_rus – on

Hi, are there any updates on this? Is some sort of state repo planned or it won't be implemented?

Sorry about that. Yeah, we've been trucking along OK without such a repo so I'm thinking it probably won't happen. You could try writing a tool that uses libalpm to query the databases directly. Here's an example of what we're using for Arch/Artix differences: https://gitea.artixlinux.org/Qontinuum/checkupdates
Sorry if I'm offtoping, but wouldn't it be easer to have just one repo for inits, init-daemons and recompiled systemd packages and rely on arch repos for the rest? Repackaging everything seems like a double-job.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #22 –
This was how things started out, using more from Arch, however users often needed to upgrade / downgrade / ignorepkg to fix temporarily broken packages (or wait and update again later) due to version dependency mismatches between repos when they updated, there was often a window of a few minutes or hours before builds completed and got synced around.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #23 –
Quote from: ####### – on
This was how things started out, using more from Arch, however users often needed to upgrade / downgrade / ignorepkg to fix temporarily broken packages (or wait and update again later) due to version dependency mismatches between repos when they updated, there was often a window of a few minutes or hours before builds completed and got synced around.
I see. I've just found out some packages are outdated - like nvidia driver (535 on Arch and 530 on artix) and base linux kernel (6.3-8 arch, 6.3-6 artix)  and that made me think relying on arch repos would be better solution.

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #24 –
Quote from: nous – on
It is, as far as the repo structure is concerned. Our packaging tools are still being worked on, a few rough edges to address.

Don't touch any repos yet; [universe] will probably move into [galaxy] and still not decided what will become itself. An announcement will be made in due time.

hows the migration going?

Re: Removal of Arch [community]

Reply #25 –
I'm guessing great, but a small donation would definitely go a long way in helping the team :)
Quote from: testintesting981 – on
Quote from: nous – on
It is, as far as the repo structure is concerned. Our packaging tools are still being worked on, a few rough edges to address.

Don't touch any repos yet; [universe] will probably move into [galaxy] and still not decided what will become itself. An announcement will be made in due time.

hows the migration going?