Arvid Picciani wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
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.
Let me quote "the arch way 2.0" which has a very nice condensed
statement that does in fact support minimalism:
Nice... so not the original Arch Way as defined by Judd that you keep
referring to... For those that do not know this version:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way_v2.0 . No offense
meant to Jules who started writing this, but you are quoting an
interpretation of the original design principles of Arch that has had
absolutely no direct import from any devs.
"
without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications
Simplicity is the primary principle. All other principles must be
sacrificed in favor of design simplicity. Implementation simplicity is
more important than interface simplicity.
"
Please provide an interpretaton of this statement that does support
enabling features for the sake of interface simplicity, breaking design
simplicity in the process.
So another person who mistakes the use of simplicity for minimalism. I
thought we had been through that many, many times.
And how is adding a configure flag or a dep a sacrifice of design
simplicity? I see no way that statement is conflicting with either of
the sides of this argument.
Allan
