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 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. >> >> > I'm not sure exactly what 'Arch Way' you're referring to here. I fail to > see any reference in http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way to > "The Arch Way means choosing against anything developed in the last > decade or so which doesn't conform to my idea of minimalism". > > As I understand it properly, Arch provides a minimalist Base you can > then build on (or change as necessary). Build it up in a minimalist > manner, fine. Some of us prefer Gnome/KDE, and all the associated > 'bloat', and posting up (for example) an xorg-server which would cripple > those packages (and probably necessitate xorg-server-hal to compensate) > is needlessly complicating things. > > 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, there's ABS and AUR. I > don't see why your dislike of particular implementations implies that > every user of Arch should forgo those implementations. > > > Indeed. If anything, the Arch way says "Keep shit simple". Minimalism comes out of this by nature. However, enforced minimalism does more harm than good. Simplicity is the most important guideline of the Arch way. If including HAL or other integral features of other source packages means stuff will get less complicated at a small to no cost, then this should be the preferred way as opposed to enforcing minimalism no matter what. Just my 0.0135€. -- Sven-Hendrik
