On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Arvid Picciani <aep@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Actually, I did notice that. I didn't intend my comments to apply directly to this particular case. I am, however, in support of the particular changes you want for this case, though not strongly enough to get excited about it. > 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. 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 disagreement then. (That said, if that actually does happen, I won't asking the Arch devs to implement my wishes, since they'd clearly be in violation of the Arch way.)
