> On 20 April 2017 at 14:07:54, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Hi, are you in a hurry? Not at all. But I can imagine what feels someone who made effort to make things better by writing patches which are still ignored year after. > IMO it's unhealthy to be in a hurry, apart from this seemingly not everybody needs those security features. Some people need them, some don't. You can just ignore this topic instead of writing another post about how much you don't need it. > Arch isn't ill, there seems to be no foreseeable risk that Arch could become ill. If somebody should really experience some illness, then please don't be vague, post a pointer to the illness. OP already mentioned few things. You can look into https://www.archlinux.org/todo/ and https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-dev-public to see how many things are need to be done. One example is abs which wasn't maintained for years. > I only claim that I don't experience illness and that my impression is, that Arch is distinctly healthy. In my experience more healthy, than any other distro I experience/experienced. It's not really about being healthy but being healthier > Imagine everybody who wants something, Arch doesn't provide, would argue with being "a little concerned about arch's overall health", to get it into Arch. Enabling those flags was already decided by devs regardless how much you hate it. It's lack of execution which is concern here. Maybe bigger issue than Arch health is attitude of some people who're trying hard to water-down any attempt to make things better. If you don't need any help let others help those who need it.
