Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-06-16 22:26:53

Is archlinux in a crisis?

I feel uncomfortable about several aspects. Let me list them up:
· Wiki is stagnating
Althoug I think many users have configurated a bunch on interesting things, they are not documentated in any way. Read the wiki about configuration of fancy desktop environments, e-mail-servers fetching and filtering users mail, doing bonding of network cards, running several servers, doing multimedia - you will find hardly text about it, and only read basics. Allthough arch demands to be a distribution with configural basics, so the source code developpers configurations should do anyhow, it has some special features. I will mention rc.conf, for example, ore the usage of /opt for several duties. Read your /etc folders, and you will see, conf.d is rarely used, allthough it was once mentioned to be the central for configurations. It is rarely used, but it should be a standard. Standards are fading away, and therefore, in many cases users have to find a special arch way in configurating things. Why is the wiki stagnating then?
· I can't see any progress in package mirrors.
The list of mirrors is more ore less static, I can't see any servers where added during the last year. Other distributions have a growing base, in nearly any country you will find mirrors that are well administrated. My experience using the mirrors are simply bad. Packages are broken, out-dated, and dependings often can't be satisfied. As the number of users is still growing (is it?), the number of mirrors should grow, too. Ore do we all use archlinux.org servers at 8'o'clock in the evening? How long will it take untill the servers are overloaded? I notice download times are worse from year to year, and I don't find a way out.
· A lot of users create their own packages. The AUR was a big step forward. Still a lot of packages are missed, and I think the AUR is stagnating, too.
· A lot of packages are done bad.
As long as I am concerned, there should be a kind of etiquette for creating packages. For my taste, a package should own a desktop object for the kde or gnome users. This should be a basic. Another basic should be, which folders shall be used to store configurations, pictures, docs. I notice a bunch of folders in /usr/shared that are rarely used.
· Furthermore, there should be a hint about what has been changed between several versions of the packages. I was badly surprised by some packages, that changed basic features of my archlinux, but I was never informed about it before installing them. The worst case is, install something, and then find out what has changed. The package maintainer knows about it, and he should tell us, at least in a postinstall hint. Something about "Notice, you should reconfigure this and that, read this ore that source for more details" would do. And it would be nice to have the chance of getting information before installing the package. Several times, I thought I could do a system refresh in a minute, I noticed some major changes on my system afterwards, and then spent hours to reconfigure my things. If I had the chance to read about it before, I would have chosen another day, where I had more time. Updating a system is a time lottery.

I still love arch. Let's discuss it's progress, and see how we all can help to reduce nuisances.

Dusty · 2005-06-16 22:30:25

The AUR just accepted a whole pile of new TUs, I suspect it will fix a lot of the problems you bring up, including bad packages, stagnating AUR, etc. The wiki problem, cactus is working on mediawiki, and Judd has opened a documentor position to work on this; I believe cactus will get that job.

The only issue you mention that isn't being addressed is that a lot of users make their own packages, and I don't think this is a bad thing; makepkg is easy, that's what its for. There will be more official and community packages soon, of course, but being able to make pagkages as well as use binaries makes arch great.

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-06-16 22:44:08

Pink Chick wrote:

Wiki is stagnating

a) We have no officialy Documentor anymore... if anyone is up to the challenge, feel free to accept the position here
b) There is work underway to convert the wiki into a better format (mediawiki, IIRC) - thanks cactus

Pink Chick wrote:

A lot of users create their own packages. The AUR was a big step forward. Still a lot of packages are missed, and I think the AUR is stagnating, too.

This is currently in the process of being solved. Thanks to neotuli and a pjmattal, there was just a large influx of new TUs (myself included) which is going to help the state of binaries in the community repo.
Also, the AUR is being actively developed - feel free to post any ideas/feature requests you have in the AUR forum sections below.

Pink Chick wrote:

A lot of packages are done bad.As long as I am concerned, there should be a kind of etiquette for creating packages.

http://aur.archlinux.org/guidelines.html
Again, if you have ideas (such as you posted), go ahead and put them in the AUR forum, so paul and neotuli can read them.

Pink Chick wrote:

Furthermore, there should be a hint about what has been changed between several versions of the packages. I was badly surprised by some packages, that changed basic features of my archlinux, but I was never informed about it before installing them. The worst case is, install something, and then find out what has changed. The package maintainer knows about it, and he should tell us, at least in a postinstall hint. Something about "Notice, you should reconfigure this and that, read this ore that source for more details" would do. And it would be nice to have the chance of getting information before installing the package.

I agree with this. This idea should be perpetuated in the AUR in the next release: the RSS feed will include the latest comment from the maintainer. In addition, cactus is working to develop some web services for accessing aur information, which will help in this regard.

However, I must say that, Arch tries to leave much up to the user, and not have it done automatically. This is part of the basic philosophy. With that understanding, it almost implies that it is the user's responsibility to know why his package is being updated and what he has to do.

PS - Great constructive post, thanks Pink Chick

neotuli · 2005-06-16 23:35:03

Seems that cactus is a busy guy

Yes, cactus showed me some stuff with SOAP, and it looks quite interesting. It may soon be possible to search the AUR without leaving the comfort of your command line. I still have to figure out all the details behind this.

Besides that, I personally don't think Arch is in crisis or stagnating. It may sometimes appear so, but there is always something going on behind the scenes, whether you realize it or not. For instance, most of the things you mention are presently being addressed, as phrakture noted.

No one has addressed package mirrors yet, and I tend to agree with pink chick. I use archlinux.org because when I tried mirrors, they were out of date and slow as hell. This is absolutley an area that need some attention.

As to packages being done bad, I'm hoping that we'll get a real nice wiki doc about it when the new wiki gets up and going. That would be really nice.

elasticdog · 2005-06-17 03:27:14

Personally I've been interested in writing some Wiki entries as I figure things out, but have been hesitant knowing that mediaWiki is coming in the near future. I guess it would be smart to get my ideas for entries down now, and they can always be converted when the change occurs. I'll try to set aside some time this weekend to work on those. I also think the Wiki could be organized much better and more consistently, but that's something that too will come with time and switching backends.

Definitely some good observations Pink Chick...it's good to see that many of your issues are currently being addressed.

cactus · 2005-06-17 03:58:49

If you can hold off writing new wiki documentation, I would wait. More pages means more work for those involved in migration.
Once the new system is up and running, it should provide a much nicer environment for page creation.

elasticdog · 2005-06-17 04:16:01

Sure thing cactus...thanks for starting the other thread on the Wiki changeover. I subscribed to the mailing list and will perhaps just write down some ideas on my local machine so I know what to create once the new system is up and running.

cactus · 2005-06-17 04:18:34

if you would like to get the pages created, in a test environement, and then just save off the wiki text for later upload, feel free to play around in the test wiki.
Know that nothing will be saved in the test wiki, however. You will need to save the text into a text file or something, and copy and paste it into the new system when it arrives.

It will provide you a way to familiarize yourself with the new syntax though..

url: http://bonk.cactuswax.net/wiki/index.php

elasticdog · 2005-06-17 04:40:03

Good suggestion...once again, logic prevails

rasat · 2005-06-17 05:22:57

Pink Chick wrote:

· Wiki is stagnating
· I can't see any progress in package mirrors.
· A lot of packages are done bad.
· Furthermore, there should be a hint about what has been changed between several versions of the packages.

I don't agree how Pink Chick said but the points are valid.

Stagnancy is not caused when number of items (documents, mirror or packages) are not increasing. Or does it mean a pot is stagnant when there is a limit how much water can be filled. No, stagnancy is caused by lack of utilization. I think this is what we are here speaking about. Either there are enough of items and more causes confusion, or users don't know what to do or don't find what they need.

In wiki, do we have enough documents? If not, then wiki site needs to be more organized for users to find them. In this regard Cactus is working on it by immigrating the documents to a new wiki system where they can properly be categorized. I still have some reservation against MediaWiki.... too flashy for my liking, most likely only me.

Do we need more mirrors? So far I have not heard any complains. If do, then how to utilize them?

About packages. Few days ago I told myself the maintenance seems good, didn't come across defective packages among the major programs. If we are here speaking about AUR, that's a different matter. If bad packages, how are the pkg maintainers been utilized?

No information about changes. This I agree. The in formations are there. How to inform the users without giving too much work to the devs?

dtw · 2005-06-17 08:01:34

I am encourage to see that other people like myself are watching the goings on of Arch Linux and feel the need to point out where things might be slipping!

I also like the fact that I know the guys are trying to address most of them already

Danny · 2005-06-17 08:06:36

I'd help with documentation if I knew more about Arch (maybe in a few months ).

Yes I know this is a bad first post.

iphitus · 2005-06-17 09:39:15

Pink Chick wrote:

Is archlinux in a crisis?
I feel uncomfortable about several aspects. Let me list them up:
[list][*]Wiki is stagnating

True,

It needs more publicity. we've got a tiny phpwiki image up the top right, and its hidden somewhere on the homepage. Maybe it should be named 'documentation' rather than 'wiki'. Also, many people dont realise or understand that a wiki is read write, dont like something? add it. It's a tough concept for some. The current move to implement media wiki and make it require passwords is a step in the opposite direction, and will discourage people. imho.

[*] I can't see any progress in package mirrors.

There are new mirrors, earlier this year an australian mirror was added.
http://mirror.pacific.net.au/ibiblio/di … e/os/i686/

which is awesome for me, its the closest mirror to me from any aussie mirror, updating at 700KB/s is fun.

[*] A lot of users create their own packages. The AUR was a big step forward. Still a lot of packages are missed, and I think the AUR is stagnating, too.

Arch needs more developers and needs new developers that will adopt packages from the AUR. I applied, and although Judd didnt allow me in first round, im definitely in the second round to be offered a position.

[*]A lot of packages are done bad.

Agreed. Should be some sort of guidelines. Arch needs developers or documentators to do that, both of which are lacking.

[*]Furthermore, there should be a hint about what has been changed between several versions of the packages.

It would be nice to include a changelog in the post install script, so people are warned of the changes between package versions, although it's displayed after installing a package, it'd still be a easy to implement, and usefull. Changes in the core of Arch's functionality should be announced on the homepage or in the seemingly now defunct newsletter.

I still love arch.

Dont we all

dtw · 2005-06-17 09:52:01

Agreed. Should be some sort of guidelines.

That is distressing for me to read, iph! There are perfectly good guidelines and it concerns me that someone who has applied for development job is apparently unaware of them!

No can make people read or even look for the guidelines. Quality of pkgs in the AUR is fundamentally the users/contributors responsibilty, the devs and TUs can only police it. Peer pressure should be the main driving force behind quality pkgs - we the contributors should know better.

With regard to the newsletter: Ben was the main contributor and did a great job, he was busy with his finals the last few months or so and i guess he had less time to spend on it (athough i never saw this mentioned publically). The newsletter carried a permenant request for more contributions. There have now been some changes so we'll see what happens with the newsletter

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-06-17 10:01:12

I am glad most mentioned issues are already adressed and work is going on. Furthermore, I would thank you all for kind replies and discussions. I feared I could start a flame war.

So more ore less, I think the major point is a new wiki to store rules and hints.

To add a point because of bad packages - I do not mention the AUR, those packages are selfmade by interested users, and shared with others. Users of the AUR are well adviced to have a look inside the PKGBUILDS and installer files. The bad packages I am talking about are other packages. To give an example, a package for a gnome app with a gui should include a desktop object, and for sure an icon to be used. It the gui makes use of pix', they should be there, 2. All additional desktop objects should be placed in just one folder. Any gnome user can check his system, and will notice that arch uses about 4 different places to store those app.desktop files. This is just an example for not well done packages.

I think with a new wiki, we could form some nice rules how a package should be designed well.

I have no idea how to increase the number of mirrors. I am working inside a government, and we have servers that could be used for some mirror jobs. But the decision was, a govnerment should be neutral and not privilege a single distribution, and if we implement a mirror, we should mirror suse, debian, ubuntu, red hat, ... too. Therefore, the project was canceled before it was born.

phrakture · 2005-06-17 16:22:20

Pink Chick wrote:

All additional desktop objects should be placed in just one folder. Any gnome user can check his system, and will notice that arch uses about 4 different places to store those app.desktop files. This is just an example for not well done packages.

Could you submit a bug to the bug tracker regarding this. I do not use gnome/kde or anything with dekstop files, so I was unaware.

Also, whoever owns the packaging guidlines - would it be possible to update it with the proper desktop file location?

nuopus · 2005-06-18 05:20:34

Pink Chick wrote:

Is archlinux in a crisis?
[*]A lot of packages are done bad.
As long as I am concerned, there should be a kind of etiquette for creating packages. For my taste, a package should own a desktop object for the kde or gnome users. This should be a basic. Another basic should be, which folders shall be used to store configurations, pictures, docs. I notice a bunch of folders in /usr/shared that are rarely used.

I'm afraid I will have to agree with this one. I submitted a bzflag2 aur PKGBUILD that included the menus because the old AND new packages in the mirror failed to include it. And the sad part is that the menu is INCLUDED IN THE BZFLAG2 SOURCE!!! It didnt even have to be created from scratch .. you just had to run a script that CAME in the archive.

Thats not the worst part. I submitted the PKGBUILD that even ran the script to create the desktop entry and someone placed a note saying that I should not have created the PKGBUILD because it already existed in the mirrors. I dont care if I don't get credit for creating the PKGBUILDS, but at least use the one I wrote that included menu entry so that we have at least ONE well made package.

Hell ... I will even dedicate a portion of my life to rebuild packages carelessly done by the maintainers if they gave me access to do so.

iphitus · 2005-06-18 05:36:56

nuopus wrote:

Pink Chick wrote:
Is archlinux in a crisis?
[*]A lot of packages are done bad.
As long as I am concerned, there should be a kind of etiquette for creating packages. For my taste, a package should own a desktop object for the kde or gnome users. This should be a basic. Another basic should be, which folders shall be used to store configurations, pictures, docs. I notice a bunch of folders in /usr/shared that are rarely used.
I'm afraid I will have to agree with this one. I submitted a bzflag2 aur PKGBUILD that included the menus because the old AND new packages in the mirror failed to include it. And the sad part is that the menu is INCLUDED IN THE BZFLAG2 SOURCE!!! It didnt even have to be created from scratch .. you just had to run a script that CAME in the archive.
Thats not the worst part. I submitted the PKGBUILD that even ran the script to create the desktop entry and someone placed a note saying that I should not have created the PKGBUILD because it already existed in the mirrors. I dont care if I don't get credit for creating the PKGBUILDS, but at least use the one I wrote that included menu entry so that we have at least ONE well made package.
Hell ... I will even dedicate a portion of my life to rebuild packages carelessly done by the maintainers if they gave me access to do so.

did you file a bug on the official one in the bugtracker?

If no, how are the package maintainers to know of the problem, most dont read the forums.

phrakture · 2005-06-18 07:27:01

nuopus wrote:

I'm afraid I will have to agree with this one. I submitted a bzflag2 aur PKGBUILD that included the menus because the old AND new packages in the mirror failed to include it. And the sad part is that the menu is INCLUDED IN THE BZFLAG2 SOURCE!!! It didnt even have to be created from scratch .. you just had to run a script that CAME in the archive.
Thats not the worst part. I submitted the PKGBUILD that even ran the script to create the desktop entry and someone placed a note saying that I should not have created the PKGBUILD because it already existed in the mirrors. I dont care if I don't get credit for creating the PKGBUILDS, but at least use the one I wrote that included menu entry so that we have at least ONE well made package.
Hell ... I will even dedicate a portion of my life to rebuild packages carelessly done by the maintainers if they gave me access to do so.

the proper course of action is to notify the maintainer about it - how are they supposed to know you made a patch? sit there googling "bzflag" over and over?

nuopus · 2005-06-18 10:18:11

phrakture wrote:

nuopus wrote:
I'm afraid I will have to agree with this one. I submitted a bzflag2 aur PKGBUILD that included the menus because the old AND new packages in the mirror failed to include it. And the sad part is that the menu is INCLUDED IN THE BZFLAG2 SOURCE!!! It didnt even have to be created from scratch .. you just had to run a script that CAME in the archive.
Thats not the worst part. I submitted the PKGBUILD that even ran the script to create the desktop entry and someone placed a note saying that I should not have created the PKGBUILD because it already existed in the mirrors. I dont care if I don't get credit for creating the PKGBUILDS, but at least use the one I wrote that included menu entry so that we have at least ONE well made package.
Hell ... I will even dedicate a portion of my life to rebuild packages carelessly done by the maintainers if they gave me access to do so.
the proper course of action is to notify the maintainer about it - how are they supposed to know you made a patch? sit there googling "bzflag" over and over?

Well ... when comparing all of the packages I have tried compared to lots of other distros it is very apparent that most of the maintainers in arch to not care for the desktop entries.

Should we flood the bug tracker with LOTS of entries or make it a policy that packages should include entries if at all possible? Because this seems to be a problem with Arch as a desktop for people new to Linux (compared to most other distros).

One could even create a script that does this for you. Example: "makedesktop title description category file" or "makedesktop -t title -d description -c category file.desktop"

dtw · 2005-06-18 10:30:51

i think phrak is refering more to the bzflag issue than the desktop file issue, with regard to reporting a bug!

iphitus · 2005-06-18 10:44:29

Even then, if you do start spamming the bugtracker with request for .desktop files, I am sure the devs would listen....

dtw · 2005-06-18 11:55:46

let's also remember to that several devs have complained about what a pain in the ass gnome is to pkg and that the work is just not worth the reward - complaining even more about it mighten make them happy!

iphitus · 2005-06-18 13:22:44

.desktop files are not just gnome dibblethewrecker. Every application should have one, or at least most X based apps. They are what menus are generated from.

as seen here in the freedesktop.org XDG menu spec, which both KDE and gnome have implemented, as well as menumaking programs for many WMs

http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-s … c-0.9.html

Gullible Jones · 2005-06-18 13:31:24

Yep, .desktop files are needed by a lot of apps... Like, for example, GXine.

Also, independant user repos should always be compatible with the AUR! For example, if you have a development version of some program in your repo, and the stable version is already in the AUR, label your version "foo-cvs" instead of just "foo".

Arch Linux

#1 2005-06-16 22:26:53

Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#2 2005-06-16 22:30:25

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#3 2005-06-16 22:44:08

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#4 2005-06-16 23:35:03

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#5 2005-06-17 03:27:14

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#6 2005-06-17 03:58:49

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#7 2005-06-17 04:16:01

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#8 2005-06-17 04:18:34

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#9 2005-06-17 04:40:03

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#10 2005-06-17 05:22:57

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#11 2005-06-17 08:01:34

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#12 2005-06-17 08:06:36

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#13 2005-06-17 09:39:15

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#14 2005-06-17 09:52:01

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#15 2005-06-17 10:01:12

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#16 2005-06-17 16:22:20

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#17 2005-06-18 05:20:34

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#18 2005-06-18 05:36:56

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#19 2005-06-18 07:27:01

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#20 2005-06-18 10:18:11

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#21 2005-06-18 10:30:51

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#22 2005-06-18 10:44:29

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#23 2005-06-18 11:55:46

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#24 2005-06-18 13:22:44

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

#25 2005-06-18 13:31:24

Re: Archlinux ciris? Let's discus!

Board footer