Re: [arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises (was: xf86-input-evdev conflicts with xorg-server. Remove xorg-server?)
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:51 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Aaron Griffin wrote: Which package has patches to add these features? Looking at xorg-server, I only see one extraneous patch that simple replaces the default grey stipple pattern with black. The rest seem (at a glance) to fix real bugs You have a point here, in that i have used a fuzzy description of the problem, in the assumption you and possible other readers remember the numerous rants on this ML. At very least I'd except You to remember your own blog. I'm going to post some hard facts to your convenience. a...@andariel: ~ egrep 'enable|disable|patch -N' /var/abs/extra/xorg-server/PKGBUILD | wc -l 24 Jan has always done a good job in the past of keeping Xorg as impartial as possible without breaking things, and I'm assuming he did the same here. i was about to state that i didnt target him at all. Then i ran this: a...@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep Jan de Groot /var/abs/ -r | cut -d ':' -f 1); do egrep enable|disable|patch -N $i; done) | wc -l 543 Now you're propably saying numbers of downstream decisions doesn't say anything. Very true, which is why i prefer arguing about intent a...@andariel: ~ grep Maintainer /var/abs/core/dbus-core/PKGBUILD # Maintainer: Jan de Groot j...@archlinux.org and bias So, just because I'm the maintainer of a package that is required for a lot of the packages I maintain makes me biased. Now, first of all: most of the patches that I apply are from upstream git/svn, or come from upstream bugtrackers fixing accepted bugs. Then about the dbus dependency in xorg: we do specifically enable config-dbus, but dbus is a dependency anyways: AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-hal, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-config-hal], [Build HAL support (default: auto)]), [CONFIG_HAL=$enableval], [CONFIG_HAL=auto]) So, having hal installed on your system means vanilla hal autoconfiguration in xorg-server. As for the other --disable and --enable flags: most of them are default or autodetected. In some cases we don't want something and --disable it, in some other cases we want these things enabled so we --enable them. Flaming based on the count of --enable/--disable flags and the amount of applied patches does not help anything, and it doesn't improve a distribution or discussion either. a...@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep Jan de Groot /var/abs/ -r | cut -d ':' -f 1 | cut -d '/' -f 5); do if (pacman -Si $i | grep gnome /dev/null); then echo $i; fi; done) | wc -l 149 Ooh, so I'm the GNOME maintainer, what next? The point is, just because *I* prefer something one way doesn't mean it's a good decision at the distro level. So there is the name of some guy, who approves the unix philosophy, on this distro, but that guy decides it's a good idea that people who prefer ubuntu make the vital decisions. I claim, You are leading a project whichs developers mainly disprove what You stand for, or claim to stand for. Which is why, ... I never even installed Ubuntu on any system, how can I prefer it? Arch has thousands of packages that need to work together, sometimes you can't stick to your so called unix philosophy.
[arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises (was: xf86-input-evdev conflicts with xorg-server. Remove xorg-server?)
Aaron Griffin wrote: Which package has patches to add these features? Looking at xorg-server, I only see one extraneous patch that simple replaces the default grey stipple pattern with black. The rest seem (at a glance) to fix real bugs You have a point here, in that i have used a fuzzy description of the problem, in the assumption you and possible other readers remember the numerous rants on this ML. At very least I'd except You to remember your own blog. I'm going to post some hard facts to your convenience. a...@andariel: ~ egrep 'enable|disable|patch -N' /var/abs/extra/xorg-server/PKGBUILD | wc -l 24 Jan has always done a good job in the past of keeping Xorg as impartial as possible without breaking things, and I'm assuming he did the same here. i was about to state that i didnt target him at all. Then i ran this: a...@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep Jan de Groot /var/abs/ -r | cut -d ':' -f 1); do egrep enable|disable|patch -N $i; done) | wc -l 543 Now you're propably saying numbers of downstream decisions doesn't say anything. Very true, which is why i prefer arguing about intent a...@andariel: ~ grep Maintainer /var/abs/core/dbus-core/PKGBUILD # Maintainer: Jan de Groot j...@archlinux.org and bias a...@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep Jan de Groot /var/abs/ -r | cut -d ':' -f 1 | cut -d '/' -f 5); do if (pacman -Si $i | grep gnome /dev/null); then echo $i; fi; done) | wc -l 149 The point is, just because *I* prefer something one way doesn't mean it's a good decision at the distro level. So there is the name of some guy, who approves the unix philosophy, on this distro, but that guy decides it's a good idea that people who prefer ubuntu make the vital decisions. I claim, You are leading a project whichs developers mainly disprove what You stand for, or claim to stand for. Which is why, ... You'd be perfectly suited to throw the first stone, Aaron. I'm confused by this. It seems rather standoffish and I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. .. i have offered my support numerous times. I can see how the daily nuisance of fixing upstream bugs can blur the own goals. Alternatively, You lie about your goals. The very reason, for me to again zombify this minor issue into an open attack, is that you have responded to it, agreeing to the user base you promised to support, but not taken action. we have maintainers we can generally trust about these decisions. Your opinions on trust vary, depending on topic. Last time we had this, You promised to kick out tpowa. You didn't. I don't track if the abuse is ongoing, since I maintain all these packages myself now. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises (was: xf86-input-evdev conflicts with xorg-server. Remove xorg-server?)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote: ...stuff... Not sure what just happened here. I thought we were having a legitimate discussion about xorg-server and this ballooned into something crazy. Apparently, you've been holding onto this for some time. If you have legitimate, actionable fixes for anything you take issue with, please post them to the bug tracker. Until then, this is just hot air.
