Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
All this 'fork this fork that' threatening is really quite sad.
A fork is not a threat. It's a suggestion to resolve problems outside
the current project politics. I can't see why anyone would be offended
by this.
I know
its common in open source and linux in
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
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.
I take that as an invite to post packages to the tracker that adhere to
the arch way. If this turns
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:13 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.
I take that as an invite to post
Jan de Groot wrote:
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
Jan de Groot wrote:
Dbus support in wpa-supplicant is not broken. A not working
networkmanager is broken. We have to make a choice here, and having
broken software isn't the right choice, is it?
dbus is indeed broken. so its a different tradeof then you suggest.
Additionaly, i don't intent
On 02/12/09 07:38, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Ray Kohler wrote:
What I personally am in support of, in the general case, is
suckless.org-style minimalism, rather than following upstream's
direction. So if upstream changes the default to enable the hal and
dbus bits, I will then be in favor of Arch
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
Dbus support in wpa-supplicant is not broken. A not working
networkmanager is broken. We have to make a choice here, and having
broken software isn't the right choice, is it?
dbus is indeed broken. so its a different tradeof then you suggest.
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:18 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Jan de Groot wrote:
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
#
Jan de Groot wrote:
Ah, so my intent is to put dbus support in every possible package in
the repository.
This is in fact what i claim.
Am I convicted now? What's the sentence?
That you read and reflect on the ideas archlinux was built on.
One of your
removed patches is one that
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Can you actually point out what is broken with dbus? That would
actually clarify why you want it removed from cups, because as I
commented in that bug report, the only advantage I see there is saving
4Mb of deps off your system.
I'm aware that
Allan McRae wrote:
While I am at it, lets see why your arguements just grepping for
enable|disable etc are idiotic. Take the gcc PKGBUILD:
i have pointed out myself that those do not form a valid argument.
Trying to disprove my other points by doing that _again_ does not work.
I personally
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 10:11 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Let me quote the arch way 2.0 which has a very nice condensed
statement that does in fact support minimalism:
without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications
Simplicity is the primary principle. All other
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:13:59 +0100
schrieb Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org:
please comment on: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/17346
summary:
1) I suggested reverting the dbus configure
flag to upstream default.
2) Jan de Groot closed the bug with WONTFIX
since this revert WILL
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Design simplicity? How is --enable-dbus less simple than --disable-dbus
or the equivalents?
My argument was --enable-dbus vs ie the defaults.
Simplicity isn't a hammer with which to attack every package that
doesn't conform to minimalism by your definition.
Yes you
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
I personally think your mis-reading the Arch Way. We do not patch
to add features that are not supported upstream but I have never seen
anything mentioned about using minimal configure flags.
Let me quote the arch way 2.0 which has a very nice
Heiko Baums wrote:
There is a second option regarding your dbus/wpa_supplicant example.
Why not file a bug report/feature request to upstream of networkmanager
to remove dbus from it? Of course you need to file this bug
report/feature request to upstream of every package which depends on
dbus.
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 10:30 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
Simplicity isn't a hammer with which to attack every package that
doesn't conform to minimalism by your definition.
Yes you can. Otherwise what is there difference between arch and ubuntu
or whatever your prefered
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:35:59 +0100
schrieb Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org:
Heiko Baums wrote:
There is a second option regarding your dbus/wpa_supplicant example.
Why not file a bug report/feature request to upstream of
networkmanager to remove dbus from it? Of course you need to file
Piyush P Kurur wrote:
I am curious. What desktop do you use Arvid ?
None at all.
I used one of these desktops (kde3) a few years ago because terminals
started to age and lack modern features.
But then the antidesktop movement has lifted keyboard centric user
experience to a modern
None at all.
Now i'm running xmonad, with a mix of gui (gimp,inkscape,browser) and non
gui
My english wasn't one of the best, but isn't a windows manager the same
thing as a desktop ?
--
Cordialement, Coues Ludovic
06 148 743 42
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 14:15 +0100, ludovic coues wrote:
None at all.
Now i'm running xmonad, with a mix of gui (gimp,inkscape,browser) and non
gui
My english wasn't one of the best, but isn't a windows manager the same
thing as a desktop ?
Nope, a WM manages windows, a
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Let me quote the arch way 2.0 which has a very nice condensed statement
that does in fact support minimalism:
Nice... so not the original Arch Way as defined by Judd that you keep
referring to...
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
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
Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.
You wanted detailed proof, here you are.
i
Giovanni Scafora wrote:
2009/12/1, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org:
I take that as an invite to post packages to the tracker that adhere to the
arch way. If this turns out to be another false promise, i will add that to
the next iteration.
is this a threat? :-)
if patches are lethal, YES :D
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 00:03 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.
I take that as an invite to post packages to the tracker that
2009/12/1, Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and provide the utility expected of such packages. Of
course, if you want a system without hal/dbus,
Giovanni Scafora wrote:
2009/12/1, Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and provide the utility expected of such packages. Of
course, if you want a
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
Giovanni Scafora wrote:
2009/12/1, Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
I take that as an invite to post packages to the tracker that adhere to the
arch way. If this turns out to be another false promise, i will add that to
the next iteration.
Assuming you meant packages to
On 02.12.2009 00:22, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 00:03 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
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.
I take that
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
I take that as an invite to post packages to the tracker that adhere to
the
arch way. If this turns out to be another false promise, i
2009/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and provide the utility expected of such packages. Of
course, if you want a system without hal/dbus,
Ray Kohler wrote:
2009/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and provide the utility expected of such packages. Of
course, if you want a system
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote:
Ray Kohler wrote:
2009/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com:
When I started on here the mantra was Arch is what you make it.
Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
(without breaking) and provide the
Ray Kohler wrote:
What I personally am in support of, in the general case, is
suckless.org-style minimalism, rather than following upstream's
direction.
So if upstream changes the default to enable the hal and
dbus bits, I will then be in favor of Arch disabling them, and we'll
be in
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:38 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Ray Kohler wrote:
What I personally am in support of, in the general case, is
suckless.org-style minimalism, rather than following upstream's
direction.
So if upstream changes the default to enable the hal and
dbus bits, I will
39 matches
Mail list logo
