-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello Alpine developers,
I’m A. Wilcox, the leader of the Adélie Linux distribution. We are a
distribution which, like Alpine, use the musl libc. We are presently
using Gentoo’s Portage system for package building, but unfortunately
we feel that the Gentoo ecosystem is no longer suitable for use.
Our goals for Adélie are as follows:
- - A lightweight desktop distribution that is user-friendly while still
remaining a powerful Linux system underneath, built on technologies
like the musl libc.
- - Support for many CPU architectures including some that Alpine does
not yet support (we already have PPC32 and experimental MIPS support).
- - The ability for users to build some packages the way they want while
still remaining a binary-first distribution (like FreeBSD’s ports vs
As such, we are considering “rebasing” our distribution on Alpine
Linux. We have a few questions and ideas to think about before we
would go ahead.
1. If we had either a different set of patches for a package, or our
patches allowed different features in a package to be built that are
currently unavailable in Alpine, would Alpine be willing to evaluate
including them in the Alpine APKBUILD?
2. Does the abuild utility support multiple repositories of packages?
How are build-time dependencies resolved in abuild? If we had our
own mesa package, for an example, would abuild be able to build
against ours when we build packages from the Alpine package tree? Or
would we need to maintain a fork of the Alpine tree and maintain our
changes in the same tree?
3. Would support for build-time configuration settings (like FreeBSD’s
ports OPTIONS or Gentoo’s portage USE) be welcomed in abuild? This
would allow us (and our users) to build packages how we want while
still having the defaults remain the same in Alpine upstream.
4. Is Alpine interested in ports to other architectures supported by
musl including PPC32 and MIPS?
5. Would support for alternative shells in abuild be a welcome
addition (allowing abuild to run in shells including Busybox, bash,
zsh, etc)? These changes would only be to more firmly align abuild
with the POSIX shell standard where applicable.
6. Would there be any interest in jointly creating some user-facing
utilities to make the abuild experience a more pleasant one for users?
Thank you for your time.
Best to you and yours,
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sat Jun 10 2017 - 05:27:38 GMT