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 real bugs > > You have a point here, in that i have used a fuzzy description of the > problem, in the assumption you and possible other readers remember the > numerous rants on this ML. At very least I'd except You to remember your > own blog. I'm going to post some hard facts to your convenience. > > aep@andariel: ~ egrep 'enable|disable|patch -N' > /var/abs/extra/xorg-server/PKGBUILD | wc -l > 24 > > > Jan has always done a good job in the past of keeping Xorg as > > impartial as possible without breaking things, and I'm assuming he did > > the same here. > > i was about to state that i didnt target him at all. Then i ran this: > > aep@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep "Jan de Groot" /var/abs/ -r | cut -d > ':' -f 1); do egrep "enable|disable|patch -N" $i; done) | wc -l > 543 > > Now you're propably saying numbers of downstream decisions doesn't say > anything. Very true, which is why i prefer arguing about "intent" > > aep@andariel: ~ grep Maintainer /var/abs/core/dbus-core/PKGBUILD > # Maintainer: Jan de Groot <jgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > and "bias" So, just because I'm the maintainer of a package that is required for a lot of the packages I maintain makes me biased. Now, first of all: most of the patches that I apply are from upstream git/svn, or come from upstream bugtrackers fixing accepted bugs. Then about the dbus dependency in xorg: we do specifically enable config-dbus, but dbus is a dependency anyways: AC_ARG_ENABLE(config-hal, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-config-hal], [Build HAL support (default: auto)]), [CONFIG_HAL=$enableval], [CONFIG_HAL=auto]) So, having hal installed on your system means vanilla hal autoconfiguration in xorg-server. As for the other --disable and --enable flags: most of them are default or autodetected. In some cases we don't want something and --disable it, in some other cases we want these things enabled so we --enable them. Flaming based on the count of --enable/--disable flags and the amount of applied patches does not help anything, and it doesn't improve a distribution or discussion either. > aep@andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep "Jan de Groot" /var/abs/ -r | cut -d > ':' -f 1 | cut -d '/' -f 5); do if (pacman -Si $i | grep gnome > >/dev/null); then echo $i; fi; done) | wc -l > 149 Ooh, so I'm the GNOME maintainer, what next? > > The point is, just because *I* prefer something > > one way doesn't mean it's a good decision at the distro level. > > So there is the name of some guy, who approves the unix philosophy, on > this distro, but that guy decides it's a good idea that people who > prefer ubuntu make the vital decisions. > > I claim, You are leading a project whichs developers mainly > disprove what You stand for, or claim to stand for. > Which is why, ... I never even installed Ubuntu on any system, how can I prefer it? Arch has thousands of packages that need to work together, sometimes you can't stick to your so called "unix philosophy".
