Skip to main content
Topic: Packagers wanted! (Read 7991 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #30
I want tto start by making a package for VIM.  Would that be an acceptable place to start?  I'm not happy with the ones that are produced and I think I can do better on a private compile.  But setting it up into a pacman package makes more sense and I can learn about pacman and PKGBUILDER then

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #31
I want tto start by making a package for VIM.  Would that be an acceptable place to start?  I'm not happy with the ones that are produced and I think I can do better on a private compile.  But setting it up into a pacman package makes more sense and I can learn about pacman and PKGBUILDER then
We are not looking to change packages from upstream arch. The only changes that should be made is to remove systemd where necesarry. No other changes will be accepted for vim or any of the other upstream packages from arch without a good reason. You are welcome to publish and share special vim builds in your own unofficial repos, but they will not be allowed under Artix official repos. The reason is that we import packages from arch constantly, and the idea is to follow arch's packages, and if people start changing packages to be too different from Arch it makes importing more difficult and more likely to have errors and problems. Also remember that a distro is designed with other people in mind, just because you don't like how a package is done doesn't mean that others do not like it. The packages are designed in a way that the majority of users will like and use, and for the small number of people who don't like it would rebuild it for their peraonal machines.

Packaging for Artix entails 2 possible forms.
1) If it is an upstream package that is in arch, you may not modify it except where necessary to remove systemd or to make it work on non systemd systems.
2) If it is a package that does not exist in Arch you are free to do what you want with the PKGBUILD of your package, but only your package, you cannot modify somebody else's package without their permision. As example, I maintain the pamac and pamac-classic packages for Artix. They are not in Arch Linux which means that I choose how the PKGBUILD is done, and if anybody else wants to modify it, they would have to ask my permission first.

Hopefully this info helps understand a bit more what packaging under Artix is like.
Chris Cromer

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #32
Thanks.

It is too bad though because it seems like packages from Arch seem to be the ones that are the most broken, and this repeatedly ends up being the case.  I thought that once we get to a completed core non-systemd os working, that we would start to become more independent on arch.

In order to make a contribution then, we really need to be experts on systemd and the free desktop components, in order to seperate them out and handle substitions for udev etc.  That is a long term problem.  It puts the development in a situation where it always has to follow changes in someone elses technology and to adapt to it, when the people you are adapting from are openly hostile to your effort.

If it is possible, can we get a list of packages that need conversion  and that artix is looking to modify?

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #33
Hanging on guys and I'll give all the help I can.  Got to go do a rehab thing first though.  Be about 6 months,  and heroin free me for packaging and programming lol

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #34
Do you have a list of what packages are needed most?

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #35
Do you have a list of what packages are needed most?

Not particularly. You can start with the ones you use yourself or those occasionally requested here in the forum. Contaminated packages are preferred.

 If you feel serious about it, join freenode/#artix and ask for an invite to the dev channel.

Please, have a look at our documentation.

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #36
I think i will soon be ready to create and build packages for aarch64. Is there a fast way to create first buildtree basing on current Artix one?

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #37
Imho, the "notes for packagers" document make several assumptions, one of them being that people have previously packaged for arch, it's really not a new-packager friendly document, sorry ... and I'm not an IRC type of person, I don't think I'm the only one.

Also, you expect people to remember the difference between gremlins and goblins? Might be a turn-off for some.

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #38
I think i will soon be ready to create and build packages for aarch64. Is there a fast way to create first buildtree basing on current Artix one?

I assume you're using Arch ARM's repos? Then you could start by building our [system] packages, starting with the most essential ones. If you take a look at our Wiki entry you'll see which ones are the bare minimum (base base-devel openrc-system grub linux-lts linux-lts-headers systemd-dummy libsystemd-dummy openrc-world openrc netifrc grub mkinitcpio). The list might be outdated, I'm on mobile phone now and can't check. Thus, you can slowly add to them the rest of the repo. Pretty much the same way we did with Arch's repos.

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #39
I think i will soon be ready to create and build packages for aarch64. Is there a fast way to create first buildtree basing on current Artix one?

I'd first do toolchain and its depends. Once you got the toolchain, you can build up from there base-devel group.


Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #41
Imho, the "notes for packagers" document make several assumptions, one of them being that people have previously packaged for arch, it's really not a new-packager friendly document, sorry ... and I'm not an IRC type of person, I don't think I'm the only one.
It's the best we can do ATM, we're still low on resources and time. I had to work between zero dark-thirty and dawn for quite a few nights just to revamp the site and the rest of the devs are borrowing time from their families / studies / work too.

But, anyway, having packaged for Arch is of the essence; you can't contribute to a repository, whereupon hundreds or thousands of people depend, if you don't know how basic packaging works. To put it in the right perspective, even seasoned packagers from the dev team have botched things once or twice (or more in my case, and I've been maintaining unofficial repos since the era of [openrc-eudev] and even linux-pf back in 2011) - imagine what would happen if inexperienced packagers, in all their good intent, were given access to an official repository without some guidance and feedback.

Having said that, the artools developer is @artoo and without his instructions on the IRC (nothing beats live conversation) I wouldn't be able to write the documentation. If you absolutely can't join the IRC, we'll gladly listen to your questions or suggestions about the packaging documentation here and try to update it accordingly.

Also, you expect people to remember the difference between gremlins and goblins? Might be a turn-off for some.

Well, we had to take  a quick decision back then about our [testing] and [staging] equivalents. Think of [gremlins] as a place with cute, furry critters that occasionally bite careless travellers and [goblins] as a place full of ugly, blood-thirsty beasts that will rape and kill you, not necessarily in that order.

Re: Packagers wanted!

Reply #42
I'd first do toolchain and its depends. Once you got the toolchain, you can build up from there base-devel group.
It was already done by ArchARM developers. I have already built runit, eudev and some other packages i included in aarch64 image i've posted some time ago