xenopeek wrote:
Can you give some examples of that? For example here are the dependencies for gedit-plugins on Debian 8.1:
Code: Select all
Depends: libatk1.0-0 (>= 1.12.4), libc6 (>= 2.4), libcairo-gobject2 (>= 1.10.0), libcairo2 (>= 1.2.4), libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 (>= 2.22.0), libgirepository-1.0-1 (>= 0.9.2), libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.37.3), libgtk-3-0 (>= 3.9.0), libgtksourceview-3.0-1 (>= 3.14.0), libpango-1.0-0 (>= 1.14.0), libpangocairo-1.0-0 (>= 1.14.0), libpeas-1.0-0 (>= 1.0.0), libzeitgeist-2.0-0 (>= 0.9.9), dconf-gsettings-backend | gsettings-backend, python3 (<< 3.5), python3 (>= 3.4~), python3.4, gedit (>= 3.14), gedit (<< 3.15), gir1.2-git2-glib-1.0, gir1.2-glib-2.0, gir1.2-gtk-3.0, gir1.2-gtksource-3.0, gir1.2-gucharmap-2.90, gir1.2-pango-1.0, gir1.2-peas-1.0, gir1.2-vte-2.91, gir1.2-zeitgeist-2.0, python3-gi, python3-gi-cairo, python3-cairo, python3-dbus
Suggests: zeitgeist-datahub
And here on Arch Linux:
Code: Select all
Depends On : gedit python-dbus python-cairo
Optional Deps : gucharmap: for charmap plugin [installed]
vte3: for embedded terminal [installed]
libgit2-glib: for git plugin [installed]
zeitgeist: for dashboard plugin [installed]
Between the two, gedit-plugins is as far as dependencies and optional features go more "minimal" on Arch Linux.
Without saying that it's this or that way in your particular example, that's exactly how you can not look at this. If you look at the list of packages in Debian, you won't even find most of them in the Arch repos.
Because Debian splits packages way more than Arch does - which can be beneficial for a minimalist approach.
To give an example Yes I see that Debian pulls in dconf-gsettings-backend.
Why isn't that listed in pacman? Because Arch is more minimalist?
No because gedit on Arch already depends on the entire dconf package.
It doesn't on debian.
If you install gedit-plugins on debian it pulls in more single split packages. Arch already pulled in the entire stuff which isn't even split when installing gedit.
Debian lists libcairo packages, Arch doesn't.
Because Arch is more minimalist?
Arch's python-gobject package is required by gedit, and already pulls in Arch's entire cairo package.
I think you get my point. That's what I mean when I say that the approach of Debian is more minimalist and that packaging in Arch definitely isn't done with the mentality which is described as the Arch way by themselves. Or at least Debian follows the Arch way more than Arch.
I won't search for examples where this is actually beneficial because that would be a lot of work and I use neither of them.
openmind wrote:There is no communication between devs and users, no surveys like in other distros, no broad discussions etc.
There isn't? Then what are all those developers doing on the forums, IRC, and mailinglists.
Yeah devs hang out in forums and chats, that's great but not what I was talking about, and it doesn't prove that they care about user choices in any way.
Other distros have actual surveys which results are actually put into action.
Anyway, what topics would you like them to survey
Do you know how many meetings and public discussions debian had before they switched their init system to systemd?
Where the software developers of systemd were invited to present their ideas as well as all contributors and interested users to have a discussion.
A lot of users still felt it was decided too fast (even though debian kept sysvinit around).
Arch did a radical change, throwing alternatives out, and the equivalent were a few devs reading in IRCs and forums and decided on themselves either way? hm that's the distro which gives all the choice and freedom to the user?
Most distros also have their real life events, Fedora for example have their FUDCon, a meeting between devs, maintainers and users, with talks, presentations and exchange.
You can connect really easy to the devs if you want to. Is there anything official like that in Arch Linux?
—additional software to include in the repositories? That's what AUR voting is for. Packages popular enough from AUR can move to the repositories and be officially supported.
Yeah but I would never use the AUR, the same way I'd never use PPAs. Like anybody else who's concerned about security and doesn't have the time to check source code by himself.
That also comes back to what I wrote above about the policy regarding repos.
The AUR is in no way supported, it's a user repo where anybody can upload package builds, linking to source code wherever he wants etc at the same time it's the official voting system.
what the heck.
openmind wrote:There isn't any policy regarding open source, in terms of repositories you find all sort of proprietary software in the official repos and don't really have control over that.
Every package, either from the repositories or from the AUR, clearly states the licenses the software is distributed under. You just have to look if you care about that.
Well obviously the have to declare the correct licenses, otherwise the would be in legal trouble, that's not what I meant. Other distros only include free software by default and you have to enable extra repositories and/or actively agree to licence agreements if you want to install non-free software. For me that's a more clear policy than throwing everything in one repo.
The AUR is not supported by the Arch Linux developers. The AUR is supported by Arch Linux users.
See a few paragraphs above. Yet it's used as an
official voting system. It's inconsistent.
I don't say it's a huge problem or evil or something, but it is not consistent.
I don't recognize that for problems in the forums the solution "constantly" is to use some AUR package. As for the wiki, it contains as much information as Arch Linux users put in it. So yes users also cover options from the AUR on it
Yeah the wiki is community driven, you're right that's a fact.
It's also a fact that there isn't any other, more 'official' documentation of Arch Linux.
So the most official documentation of Arch Linux constantly points to packages, not officially supported by Arch Linux.
Again I'm not saying it's the end of the world but I don't like it. The view on the AUR isn't clear enough for me.
The minimalistic approach of the Arch Linux developers—modifying upstream sources as little as possible—and the rolling release characteristic means that Arch Linux users are in a better place to contribute to upstream projects and in fact they are encouraged to do so. They're using the latest stable release from upstream, not some X years old one, and unlike on other distros the upstream developers are safe to assume their software was used with no modifications. Bug reports are for software versions the upstream developers are supporting, instead of what you have with Debian and the like where the distribution maintainers have to handle bugs because they use versions no longer supported by upstream developers. Bugs found by Arch Linux users quickly flow upstream to the benefit of all users of the software.
I was talking about something else there. However that's highly subjective and I don't really want to expend on it too much. Arch users and even devs often act as if the world should thank them and as if they were some sort of pioneers because of the bleeding edge nature of Arch etc.
The reality is a lot of developers from other distros actively contribute to upstream components, init systems, the kernel, desktop environments etc.
Not in the sense of filling bug reports but contributing code, looking at their distro and contributing code to fix problems or add new features.
Fedora developers were one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel for some time. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse devs contributed to systemd.
Arch devs basically copy unmodified software into their repos and for some reason behave as if the invented Linux.
As always, use whatever works best for you
Sure, I was just describing what I like or dislike about Arch. The Thread asked What do you THINK about Arch right?
I'm not saying anything I wrote above is objectively bad or wrong.