On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16:51AM +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:arch-general- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Roman Kyrylych > > Verzonden: dinsdag 25 maart 2008 9:48 > > Aan: General Discusson about Arch Linux > > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6 > > > > > > > But when you have a kernel26 PKGBUILD > > > that's 320 lines long, that simplicity is gone. > > > > It's fun that the kernel is the most often questioned part, and not, > > say, xorg-server which have tons of patches too, but I haven't heard > > complaints about it. > > > > It's fun to see that from the mess that makes up 320 lines of PKGBUILD, > almost half of it is copying of headerfiles to /usr/src. A package containing > lots of lines doesn't mean it's a bad package, as long as they're documented. > Since Tobias took over kernel26 maintenance and switched it to > mkinitrd/initcpio/initramfs/whatever, I stopped compiling my own kernels, as > the standard kernel contains everything I need. If there are objections > against a kernel that works and includes support for as much as possible > things, my opinion is to remove everything from the kernel, supply a minimal > kernel with all default things not marked as experimental enabled and let > each and every user build his own kernel. How funny will that be? > > As for xorg-server: it's funny you're brining that one up. One week ago, I > looked through the patches applied by us and other distributions. Many of the > included patches do stuff we don't support or use in arch, so they got > removed. Why would we fix Xprint using 6 patches and run --disable-xprint in > the configure step, why would we fix Xorg to run with an X86 emulator, etc. I > was sick of all these patches in xorg-server. I removed tonnes of patches > from the PKGBUILD, cleaned it up and put the left-over combined patchset in a > tarball and uploaded it to FTP. My opinion is that patching is good, but > please take a look for every patch if they're really needed. Just including > random patches because other distributions include them too is bad. > I don't think our xorg-server maintainer should take all blame here: upstream > quality of xorg-server is very very very bad. There's no maintenance on the > server-1.4 branch, and any maintenance done there is broken if you don't add > a shitload of extra patches.
Other distros applying more patches in compare to Archlinux is not entirely true. http://crux.nu/ports/crux-2.4/xorg/xorg-server/Pkgfile http://ftp.ntua.gr/pub/linux/slackware/slackware_source/x/x11/patch/xorg-server/ http://gentoo-portage.com/AJAX/Ebuild/59397/View Archlinux has much in common with 2 of the above distros, CRUX and Slackware. The first uses 1 patch and the second 3. I assume you have checked with distros like Debian and Fedora, after all its their patches we have in xorg-server most of the time.
