Ray Kohler wrote:
2009/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@xxxxxxxxx>:
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.
I've been thinking about this particular part of the "Arch way". I
think what causes the conflict in some of these cases is that
"trusting upstream" - one of our major principles - only works when
upstream is sane. Wacky things (like what freedesktop.org has been
doing to Xorg for a while now) make me begin to think this assumption
is violated in some important cases. When upstream ceases to really
care about Arch-like systems and only support more Ubuntu-like
systems, we have a problem with our "don't patch" philosophy.
This implies that you're not ok with what happened to X. So you support
my position. What you did not realize, however, is that these things are
not upstream defaults. They have been specifically enabled downstream by
the arch maintainers.
It is likely that the upstream will, as a reaction to my suggestion to
reset to upstream defaults, add these options as default. I then
suggest to still keep the upstream defaults, and maintain a fixed
version of the package on aur.
The "sanity" here is very biased, hence there is no non-biased correct
solution, other then that suggested by the founder Judd.
--
Arvid
Asgaard Technologies
