On 09/12/17 23:36, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > You proposed changes after three years of an *upstream* default, when > Arch is a distro designed around the philosophy of packaging *upstream* > code, and when the appropriate response is to either: > 1) Convince upstream their default sucks. Because the default does > indeed suck, > 2) Spread the word to all and sundry, that the default sucks, hopefully > eventually the procps-ng maintainers will realize there is nothing > "modern" about this. > 3) Come to the sneaking realization that, yes, top sucks, but not just > because of this -- and ditch top for htop. Because top sucks, and > --disable-modern-top will not fix that. If there's a single configure flag (as already used by two large distros and derivatives) that makes `top` suck "less" surely that's also an option - especially if the default is _known_ to suck and the upstream project did it on purpose. Yes - they changed the default to try and force people to read the documentation. Most people just switched to `htop` instead [citation needed]. > We're generally fine with "I'm not a Dev", where do you think TUs > eventually come from? People who contribute with ideas, help, > infrastructure suggestions, etc. Griping about a rather obviously > subjective *policy* decision is not, however, a "change", it's a > political request that assumes everyone agrees with you about how top > "should" look (and clearly some people like it, or even upstream > wouldn't support it). I submitted, what I thought, was a reasonably structured and detailed proposal to change one flag in a PKGBUILD file which would have few (if any) side effects. The whole point of a proposal is to drive a discussion; there is no assumption it is absolutely correct. I don't see that as "griping". If I'd just said "top sucks, you should fix it", then fine - but I didn't do that. > Mind you, we didn't realize you were a Manjaro user. I assumed my email address might be a giveaway. > So you have another option too -- ask Manjaro to override our package with their own, since > naturally Manjaro as a "value-added Arch derivative for beginners" would > want to validate their existence by, well, adding value for beginners. I've already released an updated package (as per link [5] in my OP). As I said somewhere else (maybe on the Arch forum?), if raising changes "upstream" can benefit the whole ecosystem it's worth doing. I'd probably dispute the "for beginners" bit though... ;) Plus, we really don't need to validate our existence, thank you. J
