On 02/08/2010 05:50 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 09/02/10 10:05, hollunder wrote:
Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2010-02-09 00:26:37 +0100:
On 09/02/10 04:49, Xavier Chantry 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?
I don't know whether you (I don't mean you alone) are just being cocky
or blind or I don't know what, but I've seen this attitude all over the
place and I don't get it.
By this attitude I refer to the total ignorance regarding these serious
problems, bye developers and regular users on IRC or right here.
It might be being elitist, but saying so does not explain why there
were not such big issues earlier in Arch's history. Maybe the target
of "competent linux users" does not accurately reflect the user base.
So, should the target change or should the user base change?
I agree that Arch should stay focused on competent Linux users, but the
update process does have flaws. The fact that users can do incomplete
updates (because devs don't set dependencies strictly enough) is one
that I can think of. On top of that, no one wants to check the mirror
status every time they do an update, it's not unreasonable to expect the
package manager to keep things working.
