Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

JGC · 2008-04-11 08:23:13

For most packages we just ship the upstream provided example config. For some packages, like gdm, we ship a different working example config suited for our distribution. Difference is that gdm is just /etc/rc.d/gdm start and you'll expect it to work, while postfix needs configuration to have it suited to your needs.

The problem with automatic configuration is that it has to be done properly all the time. I'd rather install a package and continue reading my howto than installing a package, have a useless generated config and fiddle around with weird settings and a howto that doesn't match with the example config.

dolby · 2008-04-11 09:16:56

toofishes wrote:

/me lets out a chuckle from devland
One automated install script messing with my /etc and I would be pissed. I think that is a rather big draw of Arch- set it up once how *you* like it (not just by copy/pasting a wiki article, which I have maybe done once ever), and then rarely have to mess with configs again.
We package what upstream gives us. If it doesn't work out of the box and you truely believe it should, start complaining there.

i was about to say lack of preconfiguration is one of the most important reasons a user should pick Archlinux as his distro but toofishes covered me 100%.
regarding the wiki: if you dont like it dont use it or just do as a pointer. noone told you to just copy what you see, and in fact noone should.
ps. havent seen so many quality replies in thread for so long here. that was quite a change

anakin · 2008-04-11 22:10:48

SpookyET wrote:

I do not believe that it goes against the "Arch Way." 99% of us paste the wiki into /etc/ without modification.

Hopefully 99% of us don't agree with you. Debian would probably suit you better than Arch and please, preconfigured packages go TOTALLY against the "Arch Way".

I've never copied any conf file from the wiki because I'll rather read the software's documentation, actually it gives me pleasure taking a long time to understand every detail of what I'm doing. This doesn't go against productivity since after you've set it up once it will hold for a long time if not forever as someone as already pointed out. Some years ago I spent a couple of days manually configuring X a line at a time following the manpage for every single section and variable making sure I understood each one, well my current xorg.conf is still largely based on that work and this file has been copied to several other machines requiring minimal adjustments.

People should understand Arch is really all about pacman/ABS (quite simply the BEST EVER package management system), nothing else. In a way Arch merely automates Linux From Scratch albeit in a wonderful way, everything else is up to the user which is really the only way to be in total control.

Last edited by anakin (2008-04-11 22:15:41)

aRcHaTe · 2008-04-11 22:23:22

if they were pre configureted i certain was looking for another distro be now arch should stay exactly as it is...

dschauer · 2008-04-11 23:08:10

I've been using Arch for about 6 weeks now. I've set up a server, workstation, and a my laptop with arch. I used some of the how-tos from the wiki. However, I don't recall ever copy/pasting anything from the wiki into an /etc file, so I don't really know what you are referring to.

I've tried a bunch of other distros http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 62#p339762 that preconfigure things in insane ways, especially Ubuntu. Arch is huge relief. I hope it never changes in that regard.

OK, maybe it is because I'm still an arch newbie. That being said, I've far fewer issues with Arch than I did with the first month using any other distro. That combined with the fact I've never had to do battle with Arch like I was always having to do with Ubuntu (and Opensuse even more so for the brief period of time I used it), makes me feel that Arch should never change.

I guess it really boils down to that I happen to be the target audience, as I've found Arch so much simpler and easier than all the other distros I've tried. Yeah, a few hiccups after some updates (I update daily) but very minor, and I've gotten the same if not worse in other distros I've tried.. Since I am in the current target user audience, I hope Arch NEVER starts to target a different user type and leaves me in the cold again. I just want stuff to work, I don't want to have to fight with it.

Last edited by dschauer (2008-04-12 12:07:55)

dyscoria · 2008-04-11 23:28:11

SpookyET wrote:

For example, if I install Pulse Audio, it should just work. I should not have to configure it

Someone mentioned you've already switched to Ubuntu. Guess the above is the precise reason why

SpookyET wrote:

I should not have to configure it.....I do not believe that it goes against the "Arch Way."

Cuckoo cuckoo, it's WIKI time! "It has a streamlined set of configuration files that are arranged for quick access and editing, with no cumbersome graphical configuration tools that tend to hide possibilities from the user. An Arch Linux system is therefore readily configurable to the very last detail."

SpookyET wrote:

99% of us paste the wiki into /etc/ without modification.

I'd like to know where you got that stat from in your first post. Surely not from this thread

B-Con · 2008-04-11 23:38:43

Arch is about providing you with a simple, yet powerful set of tools with which to build yourself an operating system. The Wiki is a blueprint.

Pre-configuring packages would take away the customization factor and be like the admins pushing their personal preferences down our throats.

Plus, I'm not even really sure what configurations you're wishing were pre-configured, could you be more specific? You can't be referring to Xorg, because there's no way to do that before you know the exact machine you'll be running on (plus there *exist* multiple automated tools for filling out Xorg automatically), you can't be referring to SSH since most settings are specific to the user and it comes (last I checked) with the two biggest security settings already set correctly, you can't be referring to anything DE/WM related, since again those are purely user's-wish-defined, you can't be referring to sudo since it comes preconfigured minus one line for %wheel (*assuming* you even want a "wheel" group) but the admins don't know what you'd want in there...

What am I missing? Instead of not having things configured the way you want them, do you instead mean that you want package install scripts to automatically guess what you want (like the "wheel" users group) and do these things automatically for you? Please note that many packages, when they install, output warning/advice on what you should do to configure/utilize the package.

neowolf · 2008-04-12 00:25:32

Using the wiki to rip straight configs out seems to skip out on the point of the wiki in the first place. I turn to it when I'm learning how to configure something. Not get it done automatically for me.

sweiss · 2008-04-12 06:43:25

I honestly can't remember the time in which I did happen to configure something.
Do you really install new software everyday?

Anyway, I trust that things which need to be configured are complex/risky enough for me to actually care as to how I configure them.
How would you automatically configure an Apache server?

In regards to configuration, I like the way things currently are.

tomk · 2008-04-12 08:16:27

I'd just like to mention that apart from two comebacks within an hour of his first post, SpookyET has not attempted to support his initial argument. I was lucky enough to be present in #archlinux when he announced that he was returning to Ubuntu, so I believe it's realistic to expect that he will not be responding to the overwhelming endorsement of the Arch Way that this thread now represents.

I wish him well with Ubuntu, but remain puzzled as to why he started this thread after his departure.

.:B:. · 2008-04-12 09:35:23

Don't want to sound ranty - again - but I do wonder why people often seem to want to switch to Arch while Ubuntu suits them best, judging by their beginner problems and specific desires, and still claiming Arch is for them, only it needs to change .

I think Arch has gained major prestige as a distribution but the obvious side effect seems to be all kind of indecisive distro hoppers / new Linux users jumping ship without realising how different it all looks under the hood, thinking Arch 'needs improvement' while they just can't cope with how it works.

Rasi · 2008-04-12 10:24:44

as a former ubuntu user i can say one thing: leave my configs! Its driving me nuts when i have to put everything back to normal...:)

to the thread starter: why not backup your /etc and copy it back after a fresh install? at least back up those files that you pasted stuff from the wiki to

SpookyET · 2008-04-12 11:04:04

tomk wrote:

I'd just like to mention that apart from two comebacks within an hour of his first post, SpookyET has not attempted to support his initial argument. I was lucky enough to be present in #archlinux when he announced that he was returning to Ubuntu, so I believe it's realistic to expect that he will not be responding to the overwhelming endorsement of the Arch Way that this thread now represents.
I wish him well with Ubuntu, but remain puzzled as to why he started this thread after his departure.

I have not left to Ubuntu. Here is proof. I'll reply to a well thought thread, with evidence, of why the status quo is desirable, not to a southern lynching mob.

Last edited by SpookyET (2008-04-12 13:25:58)

tomk · 2008-04-12 12:12:17

Thanks for clearing that up, Spooky. In that case, I wish you well with Arch, and I trust you will take the time to understand the philosophy and principles behind it. I look forward to your "well thought thread".

bender02 · 2008-04-12 14:40:47

B wrote:

Don't want to sound ranty - again - but I do wonder why people often seem to want to switch to Arch while Ubuntu suits them best, judging by their beginner problems and specific desires, and still claiming Arch is for them, only it needs to change .

While this could be true in general, my impression from his forum contributions is that SpookyET does *not* fall into this category. Stop the crucifiction...

SpookyET · 2008-04-12 15:15:27

bender02 wrote:

B wrote:
Don't want to sound ranty - again - but I do wonder why people often seem to want to switch to Arch while Ubuntu suits them best, judging by their beginner problems and specific desires, and still claiming Arch is for them, only it needs to change .
While this could be true in general, my impression from his forum contributions is that SpookyET does *not* fall into this category. Stop the crucifiction...

Thank you.

clarence · 2008-04-13 00:19:47

for what it is worth i would like to thank Spooky for his opinion. this community will not go anywhere positive if we cannot discuss our ideas and thoughts in an environment where we all feel safe in doing so.

even though i do not agree with the idea behind the original post i do appreciate the thought.

hey, different ideas are what makes sh*t happen, yeah?

cheers SpookyET

SpookyET · 2008-04-13 02:33:40

I have never asked that a package modifies /etc. That's idiotic. If it conflicts, it will be installed as foo.conf.pacnew, no change from the status quo.

All I've asked is for the consideration that packages should work outside the box. As in, they should contain the bare minimum configuration to make them not fail by configuring them at build time and runtime via the install script if required.

That does not stop anybody from configuring it further and learning how it works. You learn better out of curiosity than out of the frustration of making a package work just because you need it.

For example, we all know that NTPd queries a server and sets your system date. Configuring it is a bitch (opeNTPd is easy, but that's for another discussion), especially if you want it to work with gnome. I gained no value whatsoever from configuring it. I already forgot the structure of the config file. Most of the packages that do not work outside the box are a one-time configuration session -- a waste of time. After it is done, you never look at it again, and you forget the details.

Another example, PulseAudio. If you know what is, you know that it sits between your player and ALSA or OSSv4. Configuring it is a one-time-deal. You'll never care about it again. You also know that some players don't yet work with it from your favourite player's site or from discovering that you have no audio. Therefore, they be must tricked. So, you'll read the documentation that you must change the driver in your player, or that you should have alsa-plugins installed.

irssi, on the other hand, works without any configuration as long as you know basic irc commands. That has not stopped me from reading the documentation of this awesome irc client.

You learn by curiosity, not by frustration. If you require frustration, you probably lack discipline, or you have no interest in the first place.

Last edited by SpookyET (2008-04-13 14:17:30)

dyscoria · 2008-04-13 06:49:17

SpookyET wrote:

The problem is that you never finish configuring them. House chores never go away.

SpookyET wrote:

Most of the packages that do not work outside the box are a one-time configuration session

Just to clarify, which side do you stand on in this matter, or am I misunderstanding the contradiction here?

Sigi · 2008-04-13 07:55:16

clarence wrote:

for what it is worth i would like to thank Spooky for his opinion. this community will not go anywhere positive if we cannot discuss our ideas and thoughts in an environment where we all feel safe in doing so.
even though i do not agree with the idea behind the original post i do appreciate the thought.
hey, different ideas are what makes sh*t happen, yeah?
cheers SpookyET

Thats true but I (and as it seems many fellow Archers too) prefer to have packages that are as vanilla as possible. But what do I know, I'm drunk atm

Allan · 2008-04-13 08:07:06

Sigi wrote:

But what do I know, I'm drunk atm

Isn't it around 10am in Switzerland at the time of your post... I at least wait until noon.

Last edited by Allan (2008-04-13 08:34:30)

Rasi · 2008-04-13 08:51:04

Allan wrote:

Sigi wrote:
But what do I know, I'm drunk atm
Isn't it around 10am in Switzerland at the time of your post... I at least wait until noon.

1:0

brebs · 2008-04-13 09:02:21

SpookyET wrote:

bear minimum

Bare minimum. No bears were harmed in the creation of my pkgbuilds

I gained no value whatsoever from configuring it.

Completely wrong. This is a very important point. You gained the ability to at least begin to solve the problem for yourself, when someone upstream inevitably screws things up.

.:B:. · 2008-04-13 09:10:56

bender02 wrote:

B wrote:
Don't want to sound ranty - again - but I do wonder why people often seem to want to switch to Arch while Ubuntu suits them best, judging by their beginner problems and specific desires, and still claiming Arch is for them, only it needs to change .
While this could be true in general, my impression from his forum contributions is that SpookyET does *not* fall into this category. Stop the crucifiction...

I was merely stating my general impression, I wasn't talking about the topic starter exclusively. I won't keep repeating my point either - way too many people try to mold Arch into something it's not meant to be, stubbornly refusing to see that's not how it works.

It is crucifixion btw .

Last edited by B (2008-04-13 09:18:27)

iphitus · 2008-04-13 09:45:40

I think this thread has run it's course. There's nothing to be gained here.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-04-11 08:23:13

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#27 2008-04-11 09:16:56

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#28 2008-04-11 22:10:48

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#29 2008-04-11 22:23:22

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#30 2008-04-11 23:08:10

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#31 2008-04-11 23:28:11

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#32 2008-04-11 23:38:43

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#33 2008-04-12 00:25:32

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#34 2008-04-12 06:43:25

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#35 2008-04-12 08:16:27

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#36 2008-04-12 09:35:23

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#37 2008-04-12 10:24:44

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#38 2008-04-12 11:04:04

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#39 2008-04-12 12:12:17

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#40 2008-04-12 14:40:47

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#41 2008-04-12 15:15:27

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#42 2008-04-13 00:19:47

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#43 2008-04-13 02:33:40

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#44 2008-04-13 06:49:17

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#45 2008-04-13 07:55:16

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#46 2008-04-13 08:07:06

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#47 2008-04-13 08:51:04

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#48 2008-04-13 09:02:21

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#49 2008-04-13 09:10:56

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#50 2008-04-13 09:45:40

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

Board footer