On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 09:27:49PM -0600, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:10:15 +
> Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>
> > I submitted, what I thought, was a reasonably structured and detailed
> > proposal to change one flag in a PKGBUILD file which would have few (if
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:10:15 +
Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> I submitted, what I thought, was a reasonably structured and detailed
> proposal to change one flag in a PKGBUILD file which would have few (if
> any) side effects.
>
> The whole point of a proposal is to drive a discussion; there i
On 10/12/17 00:27, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Adding extraneous flags as a political decision to deviate from upstream
> defaults is itself a side effect. We will not do this without
> significantly more justification than "I dislike how it looks and don't
> want to write my own config
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Proposal: add "--disable-modern-top" to procps-ng
> configure flags
> Quoth Saul Reynolds-Haertle
>
This is an absolutely horrible response and let me tell you: telling others what
to do is not how you should live, think, use computers or (FOSS) software.
So first o
On 12/09/2017 07:10 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> If there's a single configure flag (as already used by two large distros
> and derivatives) that makes `top` suck "less" surely that's also an
> option - especially if the default is _known_ to suck and the upstream
> project did it on purpose.
>
https://github.com/rhdunn/pcaudiolib/issues/10
--
Best,
polyzen
On 09/12/17 23:36, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> You proposed changes after three years of an *upstream* default, when
> Arch is a distro designed around the philosophy of packaging *upstream*
> code, and when the appropriate response is to either:
> 1) Convince upstream their default suck
I had previously looked into packaging espeak-ng (in the AUR), but it
depends on the development version of pcaudiolib (espeak-ng maintains a
fork that is "even" with upstream). Perhaps they can be persuaded to make a
release.
--
Best,
polyzen
On 09/12/17 23:51, Morten Linderud via arch-general wrote:> I think we
both know very well that the state of security in Manjaro is way
> worse then Arch.
>
Ah, that old chestnut again. :)
At the risk of going entirely off-topic, you might also note the
difference in how your input on the Manjar
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> On 09/12/17 22:04, Saul Reynolds-Haertle via arch-general wrote:
> > a lot :)
>
> Come over to Manjaro. :)
>
> J
>
I think we both know very well that the state of security in Manjaro is way
worse then Arch.
--
Morten Lind
On 12/09/2017 12:19 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> No, I was asking how to propose changes without it being viewed as
> complaining.
You proposed changes after three years of an *upstream* default, when
Arch is a distro designed around the philosophy of packaging *upstream*
code, and when the ap
Howdy,
As far as I know, the original espeak project has been abandoned. I have heard
the original developer passed away, but I can not confirm that one way or the
other.
The latest developments have been added under a fork of the project called
Espeak-ng: https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:04:33 -0500, Saul Reynolds-Haertle via
arch-general wrote: [snip]
You missed the point, it was discussed three years ago. It's done.
Note, I'm not using procps-ng from core.
Well, that was a good use of "reply"...
Apologies.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 09/12/17 22:04, Saul Reynolds-Haertle via arch-general wrote:
> a lot :)
Come over to Manjaro. :)
J
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Apologies if this is misformatted, and I hope it works; I didn't
expect to be responding and am working in the system optimized for
readability over composition.
I subscribed to this list just last night in hopes of gaining better
visibility into the tools that I use. I have, and I think that I
sh
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 21:19:56 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>I presume the "alternate" mentioned is the AUR package already pointed
>out.
>
>So, it comes down to a packaging decision which has already been made.
>As this isn't going to change I'll let you good folks get back to your
>Saturday. :)
On 09/12/17 20:59, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/issues/78
>
For info, marked as dupe of
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/issues/6, the first reply of which
contains:
> Anyway, packagers have the option to preserve the old top defaults at build
> time, whic
On 09/12/17 20:43, Felix Yan wrote:
> Please describe your specific problem there.
>
Done: https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/issues/78
J
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 12/09/2017 11:39 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> The "modern" default interface:
>
> * requires user configuration to make usable;
> * uses low-contrast text;
> I did that - I researched, tested, and submitted a change to the
> packaging file. In this particular instance it would represent a
On 09/12/17 19:55, Gaetan Bisson via arch-general wrote:
> [2017-12-09 16:31:21 +] Jonathon Fernyhough:
>> Thanks for spending the time to consider the proposal and for your
>> valuable input, nevertheless.
>
> Your sarcasm
There was actually no sarcasm intended there - I really was thanking
[2017-12-09 16:31:21 +] Jonathon Fernyhough:
> Thanks for spending the time to consider the proposal and for your
> valuable input, nevertheless.
Your sarcasm is really pissing me off because I did take the time to
review your bug report before replying with my analysis and two
constructive su
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:47:19 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>On 09/12/17 17:31, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:19:22 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>>> Just because something was "done" two years ago doesn't mean there's
>>> not a better way of doing it.
>>
>> I guess you re
On 09/12/17 17:31, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:19:22 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>> Just because something was "done" two years ago doesn't mean there's
>> not a better way of doing it.
>
> I guess you read [1] and [2].
Yes.
Two people reply to the list who use or package
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:19:22 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>Just because something was "done" two years ago doesn't mean there's
>not a better way of doing it.
I guess you read [1] and [2]. As a side note, don't worry about the
out-of-date flag from yesterday. IIRC procps-ng-classic from AUR ne
On 09/12/17 16:55, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 16:31:21 +
> Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>
>> If anyone is willing to help me contribute in a way that isn't viewed as
>> "complaining" please point me in the right direction.
>
> And now you're asking how to complai
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:55:51 -0600
Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 16:31:21 +
> Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>
> > If anyone is willing to help me contribute in a way that isn't viewed as
> > "complaining" please point me in the right direction.
>
> And now you're
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 16:31:21 +, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> If anyone is willing to help me contribute in a way that isn't viewed as
> "complaining" please point me in the right direction.
In this particular case, ask upstream (as also pointed out on the bug
tracker). Arch Linux does not
I'm using procps-ng-classic from AUR since 2014.
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ yaourt -Ss $(pacman -Qo /usr/bin/top | awk '{print
$5}')
aur/procps-ng-classic 3.3.11-1 [installed] (Out of Date) (3) (0.00)
Utilities for monitoring your system and its processes (with classic top)
[rocketmouse@archl
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 16:31:21 +
Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> If anyone is willing to help me contribute in a way that isn't viewed as
> "complaining" please point me in the right direction.
And now you're asking how to complain without it being viewed as complaining.
The decision was made, mov
On 09/12/17 16:21, Doug Newgard via arch-general wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:39:46 +
> Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>
>> The "modern" default interface:
>>
>> * requires user configuration to make usable;
>
> Completely subjective
>
>> * uses low-contrast text;
>
> So? This is personal pr
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:39:46 +
Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> The "modern" default interface:
>
> * requires user configuration to make usable;
Completely subjective
> * uses low-contrast text;
So? This is personal preference
> * is not consistent with other distros;
Nobody cares
> * has
# Background
procps-ng [1] introduced a new default interface layout for `top` with
version 3.3.10 which switched the "traditional" list display of
processes ordered by CPU usage to a red text-based tree of processes
ordered by PID (with root on 'systemd').
# Rationale
The "modern" default inte
33 matches
Mail list logo
