Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

evgrup · 2019-03-23 10:52:22

Ninja is currently in community repository. However, as far as I know, both meson and gn(not depend on in package requirement but in function) depend on ninja.

If my understanding toward different repository of archlinux is correct. Core is most well-tested and reliable one and second is extra third is community. Combining my knowledge on Debian system, all the dependencies of packages in core repo must belong to core repo, the dependencies of packages in extra repo can be in both core and extra repo, and the dependencies of packages in community repo can be in core extra and community repo.

ninja is a nice project which is maintained by not just one people. So placing ninja in extra repo would not only reduce confusing but also put where it deserve to stay.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2019-03-23 12:14:38

evgrup wrote:

If my understanding toward different repository of archlinux is correct. Core is most well-tested and reliable one and second is extra third is community.

No, that is not correct.

Check the ArchWiki for an explanation: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … positories

evgrup · 2019-03-24 05:49:52

According to the wiki https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … positories.

"community contains packages that have been adopted by Trusted Users from the Arch User Repository. Some of these packages may eventually make the transition to the core or extra repositories as the developers consider them crucial to the distribution."

How is it possible if one package is "crucial" to distribution but its dependencies are not?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2019-03-24 11:37:56

evgrup wrote:

How is it possible if one package is "crucial" to distribution but its dependencies are not?

The meson package is in [extra] and so is not considered crucial.

evgrup · 2019-03-24 12:14:41

According to https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … positories.

extra and core repos are more well-tested and more reliable than community. But core is more crucial than extra. Is that right?

If it isn't, what is difference between extra and community?

If it is, if a package is in extra, it means that this package is well-tested and on of the essential condition is **all of its dependencies should be well-tested**. Is that right. Because the user who install this package must install all its dependencies.

The Debian rule is reasonable here, because if the user who only what to use crucial packages, he will only include core repo in his pacman.conf. If a user who only what to use well-tested package, he will only include core and extra repo in his pacman.conf. etc.

In another aspect, it is a guide to reflect the status of package for users. It is hard to imagine if a package is more important than its dependency.

If a package in community repo is a dependency of another package in extra or a package in extra is a dependency of another package in core. Why separate them instead of putting them all together?

loqs · 2019-03-24 12:43:56

Frequently_asked_questions#I_really_like_Arch,_except_the_development_team_needs_to_implement_feature_X.

evgrup wrote:

If it isn't, what is difference between extra and community?

evgrup wrote:

"community contains packages that have been adopted by Trusted Users from the Arch User Repository. Some of these packages may eventually make the transition to the core or extra repositories as the developers consider them crucial to the distribution."

makedepends are not depends.
Edit:
You are aware of how few Arch developers and trusted users use the forums?

Last edited by loqs (2019-03-24 12:47:21)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2019-03-24 12:53:54

evgrup wrote:

extra and core repos are more well-tested and more reliable than community. But core is more crucial than extra. Is that right?

I think the wiki page already explains the differences well enough but I would agree that perhaps there is a case for adding meson & ninja to [core] thanks to their ubiquity.

However, a debate here will not achieve that — open a bug or take it to the mailing lists if you want to effect this change.

evgrup wrote:

The Debian rule is reasonable here

The components of the Debian repositories are defined by the licensing of the software contained therein rather than their "essential" nature.

Trilby · 2019-03-24 13:07:57

I don't think the logic of the question is about the ubiquity of either package, but rather whether the hard package dependencies of a package can be in a "higher" repo than the package itself. This is not allowed in [core] packages: all the dependencies of [core] packages must be in [core]. Nor is it allowed for a main repo package to rely on a package not in the main repos: all dependencies of extra and community packages must be in core, extra, or community.

I believe the OP is infering a general (and sensible) rule from the specific requirements - that all dependencies must be in an equal or lower repo - then inferring a new specific requirement of that rule, that all dependencies of packages in [extra] should be in [core] or [extra]. This inferred requirement is then observered as being violated.

Is this general rule valid? We can test it in practice - are there other packages with dependencies in 'higher' repos? At least one other counter example is asp which is in [extra] depends on jq in [community]. In fact there look to be 100 packages in [extra] with dependencies in [community], so this does not seem to be a rule/standard and so there seems to be nothing wrong with ninja.

The appeal that ubuntu does things another way should not be compelling here. Arch is not ubuntu; many things are different. But there could be a good case to be made if ninja/meson were a singular exception to either an explicit rule or a de-facto standard. But with 100 other packages having similar circumstances, there seems to be no such standard, and therefore no problem to fix.

Last edited by Trilby (2019-03-24 13:37:31)

Arch Linux

#1 2019-03-23 10:52:22

Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#2 2019-03-23 12:14:38

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#3 2019-03-24 05:49:52

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#4 2019-03-24 11:37:56

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#5 2019-03-24 12:14:41

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#6 2019-03-24 12:43:56

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#7 2019-03-24 12:53:54

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

#8 2019-03-24 13:07:57

Re: Ninja should be placed in extra repo instead of community repo.

Board footer