Closing.
]]>@Brain0, thanks. In that case I'll set aside a weekend to do a new installation.
*edit* Oops, just saw Zeke's post...
I'm not sure exactly what the issue is that you're seeing. Typically on a 'big change' update, you'd have to intervene manually to fix some stuff or other that's not automatically handled (mostly, for example the ck update was pretty seamless). But after you've done the proper intervention, your system should not be any different from a freshly installed system, so I'm not sure why you'd want to go through all the hassle of a new installation (especially if, like some here, the last time you installed was more than half a year ago and everything regarding installation has changed a bit).
Just keep updated, fix things as they come up. As long as you avoid manual hacks or at least keep note of them to revert them later, no big problems should be expected.
]]>*edit* Oops, just saw Zeke's post...
]]>From the look of how things have been developing/changing so rapidly, we are in a transition and it is not complete. Can someone say when the transition will be complete? By "when" I do not mean a time, but a target set of default programs.
After the consolekit-removal, I can't think of anything that needs to change for now. But as the software world surrounding Linux evolves, more things may need change.
]]>So yeah... arch linux has moved to systemd... and I like it.
]]>The distribution isn't supposed to be popular or appeal to a broad audience, so what the users think about the developer decisions is pretty irrelevant to the decision-making.
Pretty much this. Arch Linux is not trying to convince anyone to use it.
Now, could we please stop the meta-discussion. The topic is systemd and Arch's move to it (which is pretty far along by now due to gnome 3.6, ck-removal, etc.). Not 'who is the distro made for' or 'why complaints are contributions'. Start another thread on that, we'll move it to TGN, then have your fun.
]]>WonderWoofy wrote:D4ve wrote:So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!
I think we have a language barrier here. Maybe it would be better worded as: The developers make the distro for themselves. We are simply lucky enough to be able to use the fruits of their labor.
No language barrier, i understand what you wanted to say but i think it's not true.
I don't think we are simply lucky enough to be able to use archlinux. I think this distro is for everyone who needs a distro like this. Simple, minimalistic, stable, good community, no (or not many) downstream patched applications.
Archlinux doesn't waste man-power on serving more than one init-system. Of course there's a choice and if anyone wants to use initscripts, well, why not? But the developers concentrate on systemd and i thinks thats the right way. I don't want to say systemd is the right way, i say to concentrate on one init-system is the right way. No waste of man-power, everyone uses the same and you still have the choice if you don't want to use it. I never thought on not using systemd. If the developers say it will be standard they have their reasons and anyone who uses archlinux should respect this. Well, now we're on the point it looks like archlinux is for the developers who make this distro but, as said above, i don't think it's true. Such a great distro can't be just for developers (and don't forget theres a newbie-section in the forum).
Hope anyone understands what i want to say.
It's not just for developers, the point is that it's developed by the Arch developers for the Arch developers based on consensus among themselves, not among the community. Community input is appreciated if it's time spent working on stuff like documentation, code, or even money to support the servers. The distribution isn't supposed to be popular or appeal to a broad audience, so what the users think about the developer decisions is pretty irrelevant to the decision-making.
]]>D4ve wrote:So, this distro is for people who develop this distro to develop this distro? What?!
I think we have a language barrier here. Maybe it would be better worded as: The developers make the distro for themselves. We are simply lucky enough to be able to use the fruits of their labor.
No language barrier, i understand what you wanted to say but i think it's not true.
I don't think we are simply lucky enough to be able to use archlinux. I think this distro is for everyone who needs a distro like this. Simple, minimalistic, stable, good community, no (or not many) downstream patched applications.
Archlinux doesn't waste man-power on serving more than one init-system. Of course there's a choice and if anyone wants to use initscripts, well, why not? But the developers concentrate on systemd and i thinks thats the right way. I don't want to say systemd is the right way, i say to concentrate on one init-system is the right way. No waste of man-power, everyone uses the same and you still have the choice if you don't want to use it. I never thought on not using systemd. If the developers say it will be standard they have their reasons and anyone who uses archlinux should respect this. Well, now we're on the point it looks like archlinux is for the developers who make this distro but, as said above, i don't think it's true. Such a great distro can't be just for developers (and don't forget theres a newbie-section in the forum).
Hope anyone understands what i want to say.
]]>you thing that I reffer to the python and ffmpeg package?
Um, yes :-)
If you were talking about gstreamer0.10-* packages, then please disregard my question.
and I notice that xfburn depend on gstreamer0.10-base
]]>