Nice to see a few more from Argentina!
]]>Just a suggestion: what do you think to uniform parameters and change the switch to -Qq instead -s in pckgstats in clear reference to pacman's usage?
]]>If there's not yet that functionality it would be cool to make pkgstats dump the same report it sends to Arch HQ to a desired file so, among other things, I know exactly what will I need in the event I have to install Arch again from scratch - I cross my fingers and touch wood.
* EDIT * I'm pretty sure pckgstats -s > {file} will do the trick
You are awesome guys.
]]>fukawi2 wrote:I could see a compromise where pacman has an optional dependancy on pkgstats to help raise awareness of the package among the users (those who use Arch without reading the forums, news etc or who just weren't around when pkgstats was first released)
Yeah, I think having 'pkgstats' as an optional dependency for 'pacman' would be a good minimum. It would make more Arch Linux users aware of 'pkgstats', but there would still be many who'd ignore it and the statistical accuracy would therefore be lower.
If 'pkgstats' becomes a necessary dependency for 'pacman', it could still be optionally disabled in the configuration file or rejected by the user at every hundredth runtime. I don't think this approach would be un-Archie, especially if the 'pkgstats' functionality is disabled by default in the source archive for other distributions.
Hi, I'm been using Arch for some time now and I'm very happy with it. I love it simplicity, it speed, it's cool community, everything, and as hard it may be seen for untrained eyes for install, configure and so on, it excellent aproach to the true meaning of simplicity make Arch a cake to use -with it pros and cons- without sacrificing anything, in fact boosting overall system speed, usability and so on.
Because personal matters -my girlfriend and my shop- I didn't had the time early to check deeply forum/Arch planet for news and what's happening around here (and it twin spanish community, www.archlinux-es.org) but now after dinner I have a little time the first thing I came across was this post about pkgstats.
As fukawi2 says that approach "would make more Arch Linux users aware of 'pkgstats'". Take me as an example. I'm anxious to help back Arch community/devels and if I were aware before about pkgstats I undoubtly would chosed 'in' for it. I don't say Arch will lost a lot because I did not submit my stats, but making it user base aware about this kind of things at least once at 'pacman -Syu' would be great, I think.
However, as dyscoria states, "I must disagree. Sure pkgstats is useful, but to pester the user at all post install (let alone more than once) would be very un-Arch-like, and i'm fairly sure many distributions would share the same view (i know Fedora at least only asks once at install).
The only time a user should ever be asked to provide package statistics is on first install. After installation, providing statistics should be a completely voluntary activity taken by the user. Encouragement to do so on the website or forums is as far as a distribution should go. If an Arch user does not want to provide statistics then he doesn't want to be pestered _at all_ even if it's every thousand times that pacman is run."
I'm curious about how devels with help of the community will find the perfect balance between usability and Arch way. No doubt you're doing an incredible job and because that simple people, un-technical end-users just like me, are starting to be aware about Arch (just take a look at www.distrowatch.org).
Best, and as usual thank you very much for all of you who have helped me pave the way to this great great *great* distro in my box!
]]>Shame on the others.
]]>So we do another pkgstats drive to get some current data?
Well, do we need them?
Maybe not... it would be good to see how well our last clean-up of [extra] did. And we still have many orphans that we could decide to drop if current usage is small.