On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM, David C. Rankin < drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/09/2012 12:54 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > >> Judging from a brief read of that paragraph I would even conclude that >> they cannot really use our name and trademark directly as they changed >> too much. :-) >> >> They chose to be completely independent from us which has up- and >> downsides. And as lots of other derivatives thy implemented their own >> tools and infrastructure. >> > > My point wasn't to spear the site -- in a way, the more and different > variations of Arch -- the better. The original thought that provoked the > discussion was link to ARM forum thread that dealt exactly with the > util-linux conflicts I see on my box. When I followed the link to > http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/**viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467<http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3036&p=18467>I was presented with what looked like an Arch site but required a separate > login/pass to post. (no big deal, just confusing). I just wanted to make > sure that there were not 2 forums for different issues in Arch. (I couldn't > see why there would be, but it was confusing enough to point it out) > > Thanks for the info and clarification Tom/Pierre, all. Learning occurred. > Looks like the ARM folks have shadow issues to solve as well :) > > > -- > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. > > > Hi everyone. I'm the lead developer for Arch Linux ARM, and I just want to jump in with a few clarifications to clear up any confusion. Regarding the name, we didn't just decide to use it out of the blue. The distribution was originally called PlugApps, and was designed to only run on plug computers. Around March/April 2011, we contacted Aaron Griffin and got explicit permission to rename our distribution to Arch Linux ARM since we were rapidly expanding our focus from plug computers to a wide variety of ARM platforms, and had also brought our packages and overall philosophy in line with upstream. Arch Linux ARM is a direct port of Arch Linux, not so much a derivative or variation in my opinion. What happens upstream is matched exactly on our side except where deviations, patches, or changes are needed to compile or run on the ARM architectures we support. Upstream package updates are processed daily, built, and distributed to our (comparably tiny) network of mirrors. If you'd like more information on how I manage all of this I'd be glad to oblige. Our websites for the main page and the forum are markedly different from the main Arch site and forum from my point of view. While it would of course be nice to have a single sign-on or merged system, that's not what we have nor what we sought. The other ports of Arch to other architectures and the other derivatives have always remained separate entities, so we followed suit in keeping ours separate. A lot of our issues are also very different from what x86 users experience, since many originate from hardware-, bootloader-, or kernel-specific quirks. If you really want all that crap in your forum, we can talk further about that. Regarding working closer with upstream, we have worked with a handful of the developers and TUs on different things. Generally after they've started using our distribution and discover some issue on a package they maintain upstream. Whereas upstream has a brigade of folks to handle packages, for us there is really just me so some things slip through the cracks. I've also taken the time to introduce Dan McGee to how the distribution operates internally, specifically in regard to the automated build system I have in place. I'd be more than happy to work with more developers from upstream, and I just want to re-emphasize that we're in no way some rogue derivative flying your flag. If anyone wants to get involved or learn more about what goes on, feel free to contact me by email or on IRC.
