[crux-devel] CRUX next

Juergen Daubert jue at jue.li
Fri Jul 13 14:46:20 UTC 2012

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:57:14AM +1000, Danny Rawlins wrote:
> HI Everyone,
> Here is my reply,

thanks for that!


> > b) Keep our repository layout as simple as possible
> >
> > At the moment we have official repos for i686 and overlay repos for 
> > x86_64 and multilib on top of those. That's ok and the best way to do 
> > it at the moment, but not really neat for the final solution.
> > I'd suggest to merge everything needed by a) into our core/opt/xorg
> > repos and add only _one_ additional repo, probably called 'lib32', 
> > for the compatibility libraries.
> If we must have one repo for 32bit compatibility it should be called
> compat32. But I disagree it's not hard to have coe-32 xorg-32 opt-32
> contrib-32 as jaeger has now.

What do you mean with hard? From a technical point of view it's not a
big issue to have three repos instead of one, but it's an issue. You
have to create the repos, add a user group for each repo, manager user
for that group etc. But the main point is a different one: IMO most
users will _not_ need the multilib feature, therefore the idea is to
keep the impact of it as minimal as possible, or better, to move the
stuff that is needed for it mostly out of the way. And in this sense
having six repos instead of three is a big issue ;)


> > What do you think?
> Other points to make that x86 (32bit) could be comunity driven so as to
> not be official but still available for use. Much like Jues i586 was
> around for a very long time. except more users will hopefully jump on
> that band wagon.

Of course, I've nothing against any contributed solutions.

> IF we must have a pure 64bit iso then we could have some script to
> convert it to multilib and add in the additional overlay repo's as required.

I'm entirely against a solution that splits our efforts. Our little team
should work on one and only one CRUX.


More information about the crux-devel mailing list