On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:07:04PM +0100, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote: > On Monday 24 March 2008 22:47:34 RedShift wrote: > > I wanted to steer clear of personal attacks but unfortunately, tpowa has > > been a large contributer to the "lets adapt to the community"-style. I'm > > sorry to say it, but that's how I experience it (because of his work on > > kernel26 and qt) - and it needs to be said! Arch used to be different. I > > wouldn't be very surprised if Judd raised eyebrows on what's been going > > on lately. > > imho somone should slap some arch devs around with "the arch way". multiple > times. until they get it. I wish judd would suddenly appear and cast some > magic spells to vanish all nonbelievers. > > > What Arch needs is to have strict guidelines on PKGBUILDs and kick out > > any developers that don't have the same idea. A proposition: > > * Patches are unacceptable unless in the case the software wouldn't work > > *at all* (Hint, qt PKGBUILD) > > yeah. Qt.... good example of how arch lost its way. Current list of distros > we "reject" bug reports from (well we tell the users to try an upstream > version): debian, gentoo, fedora, mandriva, archlinux. you made it on the > list, congratulations. > > > * Pre and post install/remove actions should be kept at a minimum. > > Assume the user is smart (quite the opposite of the current trend). > actually written down in the "arch way" > > > * Stress the fact that users must read pacman's output and the news. > > Alot of problems on IRC are related to the fact that people are lazy and > > don't read pacman's output _at all_. That's their own damn fault > we used to kick those people out without any hesitation. > > > * No handholding (like, no automatic stopping of daemons upon pre > > remove, adding of groups, etc...) > actually written down in "the arch way". and even phrakture agreed on irc. > > > * Bugs and other issues that come from upstream, _should be fixed > > upstream_. If people do have problems with a certain issue, they can abs > > and makepkg themselves. (See rule 1) > actually written down in "the arch way". > > > * No branding or "Arch defaults". It only makes the PKGBUILDs more > > complex, and ruins the idea of the software coming in its original form > > from the authors > actually written down in "the arch way". > > i believe archlinux is lost and i stopped fighting for it. It's exhausting to > fight against argumentation like "but other distros do the same". those > people just didnt get the point and should be kicked out of arch directly. > You argue that those people actually contribute too much to kick them out? > Look. they just contribute things that we don't want. We don't want > downstream patches. We don't want automatic scripts (except udev, it damn > rocks, thanks for that). We don't want downstream split packages. You could > safe hundrets of hours by just not doing that. > > No, no. the real issue is: Arch is going mainstream, and there are more people > who aprechiate that then there are offenders. For those of you who adore the > arch way, I suggest grabbing pacman and all the good stuff that arch had, > and just go to slackware. We're currently evaluating slack for servers. I > miss my good old pacman, but at least its not feeling like ubuntu. > > btw. concerning the ISOs: i never used them. they suck. pacman -r ftw > -- > best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Arvid Ephraim Picciani > Well actually the Arch Way has change a lot recently. Wiki says it was done in order to be "more formal and understandable" but i feel quite the opposite. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=The_Arch_Way&diff=32398&oldid=32300 Greg
