Archlinux32 devs need some help, advice on build failures in particular

Hello everybody,
since Arch Linux announced their decission to drop i686 repos this autumn there has been quite a bit of weeping. :sob:
But the end of sorrow has come!! :angel::pray::clap::trumpet:
Two (at least two) guys with mission and vision have taken up the challenge to keep 32bit machines usable beyond autumn 2017. Their nicknames are tyzoid and deep42thought.
"Usable" for a computer means, of course, what else, that it does package management with pacman.

I've recently tested their install medium and was able to install an Arch base system using the repos of archlinux32. My report on that is on archlinux32 forum:
It is quite an achievement already, but they still have some challenges ahead of them. At the moment they struggle with some packages which fail to build keeping all the rest of the packages from being updated.

So If someone maybe from @Manjaro-Team knows how to help them, please, contact them on their forum, github, mailing list or whatever. I think it would be a good thing to help, because there are some i686 Manjaro users whou would appreciate to be able to keep using their machines.

If you just want to test install their ISO go ahead and report on their forum. Read my forum post there on how to configure pacman mirrors to use mirror (and how to install archlinux32-keyring).


Hmm... the xz failure looks to be due to the compiler treating all warnings as errors. That's a flag; not sure why there would be a difference between the 64-bit and 32-bit PKGBUILDs or the build process though.

Waiting for an email from their forum...


New ISO from August 2017 of archlinux32 is available.

tyzoid wrote me recently

Eventually, I want to get openQA configured, but I haven't had time recently to spend getting it up and running.

openQA is for automatically testing installations. Maybe someone would like to contribute


[09:04:06] <deep42thought> brtln: is it possible to make a public announcement, that archlinux32 is now considered operational - to make some advertisement?


I wonder if you couldn't gracefully migrate latest manjaro 32-bit build users to that via an update (with a notice or something perhaps)

archlinux32 is not Manjaro. If you send Manjaro users there you will also send some people who need help with changing the wallpaper. A thing like Manjaro32 is needed for many users who installed Manjaro i686.


I tried shifting one of my i686 laptops to the Archlinux32 repos and it seemed to go okay. There were a number of downgrades (it seems they are a bit behind Manjaro at the moment). But it's running fine so far. We'll have to see as more packages are updated.

I'm still holding out hope that Phil will relent on dropping i686 seeing as we have an upstream package source...

Even if we maintained a limited set of Manjaro packages (e.g. a single LTS kernel) it's a better situation than the current one.


How long would Manjaro i686 user might be able to update from AUR if at all, what do you think?

As long as the PKGBUILD is for 'any' or includes 'i686' then the AUR package will work as long as the upstream projects support i686.

The majority of software still has 32-bit as a target, and will as long as other distros (RHEL, Debian) support 32-bit architectures.

Then Manjaro i686 users should not rush to switch to archlinux32 mirrors, at least as long the build time for the mass of AUR packages becomes too long to tolerate.

Yaourt also asks if you want to update all packages or exclude some, then the user can edit the list of packages to be updated.

I looks not that bad with package versions now as two months before. I didn't have an actual isntallation on my netbook, but it looks from visual comparison of Manjaro unstable repo and archlinux32 repo that only systemd differs in core: systemd-234.11-9-i686.pkg.tar.xz vs. systemd-234.11-8-i686.pkg.tar.xz

New ISO is available: archlinux-2017.10.01-i686.iso


@jonathon @philm
It looks like deep42thought from archlinux32 has got a good idea how to get testing feedback from users.

I would like to encourage more archlinux32 users to take part in testing packages.
There is a package (report-installed-packages) to send a correctly formatted email report about installed packages from testing/community-testing to the build master.
The build master will then mark these packages as tested and move them to their stable repositories if appropriate.
To set it up, you will need to:
-activate the testing and community-testing repositories in your /etc/pacman.conf
-install report-installed-packages
-install sendmailadvanced
-generate a gpg key, if you don't have one already
-set up some "sendmail" command (for example msmtp)
-let me know your gpg fingerprint, so I can put it in the build master's white list
Then you can simply run
report-installed-packages you@your.mail
to report all installed packages (and their versions) from testing and community-testing to the build-master. (I do this before every invocation of "pacman -Syu")
Some sidenote:
You will send information about installed packages to a place you don't control (e.g. the buildmaster). However, the information should be encrypted on its way and the build master should only evaluate if you are allowed to mark packages as tested and, if so, mark the mentioned packages as tested. If you are paranoid enough (no offense), you can examine the relevant script on github, as well as the scripts in report-installed-packages and sendmailadvanced.


deep42thought wrote me:

Reporting packages which are not actually in our testing
repositories is no problem: The script will simply/silently ignore them.
So testing on manjaro32 should be no problem for packages which are
taken identically from archlinux32.

So, if anyone wants to participate in testing - go ahead!


This was the hardest part.


I wrote a guide "for Dummies" how to set up msmtp for the purpose of pacakge test reporting for archlinux32. Take notice that to participate there in a productive way you will need to have packages from archlinux32 testing repo.


I hate to be the bearer of (potential) bad news, but:
fighting against Arch's 64-bit only decision, is like fighting Arch against systemd, in the recent past, and we all saw how that turned out.

My answer would be to search the three archlinux32 maintainers with a search engine. My impression is the guys can do it.

And how did OpenRC turn out? There is a great new distro out there!

1 Like

32-bit and 64-bit stuff simply complements itself.
One can not care about the other, but worst case, whatever progress is made on X is skipped over Y.

Init systems decisions instead clashes with the paradigms of others.
Not really the same thing.

Forum kindly sponsored by