Allan McRae wrote: >> With every big rebuilds we get new breakage stories. It seems like >> it's the norm nowadays rather than the exception. >> >> I am wondering if it's really only the users that are to blame.. or if >> Arch is also to blame. Or if Arch was supposed to be an elitist >> distribution and is victim of its success. >I think the answer to that is in the question: What did we do different >previously that resulted in far less of these issues? >My impression is that nothing has particularly change in terms of how >rebuilds are handled. If anything, the whole process has become a lot >more streamlined and cases of missing a package rebuild are now almost >non-existent. >So the cause must be... A change in user-base? Maybe just an increase in >user-base resulting in more people who think Arch should be done their >way and not the Arch way? Well, I think this viewpoint is too elitist... I am not sure that you should blame users who just read http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration#LCD_filter_patched_packages and who don't even know that cairo is a dependency of gtk2. (Come on, do you know well every installed library on your system?) And with broken cairo the user just gets "fav_gtk_app: error while loading shared libraries...", so it requires a little bit sophisticated bug-hunting. I just mention the "-Sy system_breaker_package" issue again, where sodepends or libpng14 could help. I know that these system breakages require some user fault too, but I think the main purpose of pacman (should be) to not allow break our system. If I accepted your standpoint as a solution, I would suggest to not use %CONFLICTS% array or versioned dependencies ;-) (Because "elite" users should know that foo conflicts with bar, and all his packages [dependencies] should be always up-to-date...) Bye
