Re: Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Arvid Picciani wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:

Can you actually point out what is broken with dbus? That would actually clarify why you want it removed from cups, because as I commented in that bug report, the only advantage I see there is saving 4Mb of deps off your system.


I'm aware that minimalism is not a valid argument.
My point was, that adding specific features for supporting a corner case for a specific subset of users, is a way worse argument.

And blindly not enabling it for a specific subset is also stupid. In fact, the logical choice would be to supply a package that the minimal number of people need to recompile, if only to minimize user bitching.

While I am at it, lets see why your arguements just grepping for "enable|disable" etc are idiotic. Take the gcc PKGBUILD:

--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,ada
--enable-shared
--enable-__cxa_atexit
--enable-threads=posix
--enable-clocale=gnu
--disable-libstdcxx-pch

etc... Should I revert them to the "default" values. No. How many of the other flags counted by your grep are needed?

So far you opinion means nothing to me as it is only a rant with very little backing in terms of information.

I have not provided details on dbus, because it is irrelevant to the argument. It is undeniable that my most pressing concern is removing dbus where the arch way argument holds (i will NOT post bug reports that remove dbus from packages where it is upstream default), however this does in no way affect the validity of my points.

I personally think your mis-reading the "Arch Way". We do not patch to add features that are not supported upstream but I have never seen anything mentioned about using minimal configure flags.

If you care anyway: dbus does crash frequently and some software that has been configured with it, dies ungracefully, leaving the system dead. Additionally hal is using 100% cpu on my system.

So you filed bug reports about this? Or just bitched? Or is this only occurring on your system where you maintain a 50% fork and not being noticed by others?

Allan



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux