Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

Mikos · 2006-12-18 22:11:46

I hope I am not off-topic here, but why isn't "libified" pacman3 included in 0.8? And when it will be included (please don't tell me "when it is ready" ;-))? I have been hoping that pacman3 will be _the_ biggest change in 0.8. Frugalware have pacman3 for a very long time and Arch Linux still nothing? I think 0.8 is unnecessarily high version number, 0.7.3 is without pacman3 more than enough.

But anyway thanks for great work. I am only little disappointed that my expectations weren't fullfilled...

phrakture · 2006-12-18 22:14:54

Mikos wrote:

I hope I am not off-topic here, but why isn't "libified" pacman3 included in 0.8? And when it will be included (please don't tell me "when it is ready" ;-))? I have been hoping that pacman3 will be _the_ biggest change in 0.8. Frugalware have pacman3 for a very long time and Arch Linux still nothing? I think 0.8 is unnecessarily high version number, 0.7.3 is without pacman3 more than enough.

The version here is the version of the initscripts and installer. It has nothing to do with pacman. pacman3 will be released when pacman3 is released. If you want to see it come out faster then help out - join the pacman-dev mailing list and give us a hand with testing.

iphitus · 2006-12-19 08:01:19

Mikos wrote:

I hope I am not off-topic here, but why isn't "libified" pacman3 included in 0.8? And when it will be included (please don't tell me "when it is ready" ;-))? I have been hoping that pacman3 will be _the_ biggest change in 0.8. Frugalware have pacman3 for a very long time and Arch Linux still nothing? I think 0.8 is unnecessarily high version number, 0.7.3 is without pacman3 more than enough.

as phrak said, when it is ready. Frugal don't have pacman3, their copy of pacman has deviated far enough, that they maintain a seperate codebase, and thus a different package manager.

At the moment, everyone wants pacman3, but nobody wants to work on it, phrakture is developing it almost by himself. Give him the time he needs to deem it "ready" -- or help him.

James

Mikos · 2006-12-19 15:35:38

iphitus wrote:

as phrak said, when it is ready. Frugal don't have pacman3, their copy of pacman has deviated far enough, that they maintain a seperate codebase, and thus a different package manager.

I can't agree, I have read pacman-dev archives from last 6 months and everything looks like Frugalware devs are doing really great work on pacman3 which isn't (from strange reasons) sufficiently appreciated by some Arch Linux devs.

I am sorry to say that, but from the point of view of independent observer, it looks like injured vanity (on the side of these Arch Linux devs).

I don't like Frugalware, but I really like what Frugalware devs (and originally Judd) are doing for pacman. And I really can't understand why we just can't join forces with them and use their great work. They are very open, very active on pacman-dev mailing list and they are willing to help us.

phrakture · 2006-12-19 16:19:03

Mikos wrote:

I am sorry to say that, but from the point of view of independent observer, it looks like injured vanity (on the side of these Arch Linux devs).

You mean me. Trolling is not appreciated in announcement threads. Take it to another thread please. For the record EVERY patch except for the silly MaxTries patch is included in our pacman. Complain if you want, but please use real information if you want to complain about me.

Now, can we move away from pacman discussion in a thread about the install ISO?

Mikos · 2006-12-19 16:28:21

Sorry, I don't want to troll, I have been reacting to iphitus quote: "Frugal don't have pacman3, their copy of pacman has deviated far enough, that they maintain a seperate codebase, and thus a different package manager.", which is IMHO completely wrong.

I have told what I see on mailing list, maybe it is not true and you have better relationship with Frugalware devs, but it looks like what I have described. If it isn't like that, then I am really sorry.

And sorry for off-topic, lets end it now ;-)

Dusty · 2006-12-19 17:55:27

Its bad taste to post this in the announcement thread, so I've split it. This is a confusing question for several, so I'll try to set the record straight. The devs can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the situation as I understand it:

pacman 3 has been in development for quite some time, mostly by Aurelien. Development was very slow. It didn't pick up until Aaron took on the project some time ago.

The Frugalware devs were not happy with the development speed and decided to help out with pacman 3. They wrote many changes and patches. For some reason, these were not accepted into pacman 3. I'm not aware of the conditions, but I would guess it was partially because Judd didn't have the time to sift through them and the other Arch devs weren't interested. Perhaps there were also issues with the coding style or attitude of the Frugalware developers. Also, many of the changes the Frugalware devs have incorporated are considered to violate Arch's KISS principle by the Arch devs. This started before phrakture was working on pacman 3, in fact, I don't even think he was an Arch dev at the time.

This is where the problems started. There's no sense in laying blame for the differences. Frugalware made some changes and these changes were not incorporated into pacman 3. Chalk it up to a difference of opinion between the two groups of developers.

The Frugalware devs decided to fork the pacman 3 code so they could more easily develop their patches. By fork, I mean they copied it into their own separate code repository and are working on it independently from development on pacman 3. AFAIK, they are no longer even attempting to share their code, in the knowledge that the Arch devs don't want it.

For some reason, the Frugalware devs decided their fork should have the same name as what I will call the real pacman 3. They are developing a totally different program that happens to have a common ancestor with pacman 3, but they've given it the same name. This has caused a lot of confusion.

At this time, the difference between the two development groups is irreconcilable. Either this will change in the future and the fork will be merged, or the two programs will become increasingly different until there is no confusion between them. In the spirit of GPL, I'm sure both groups are sifting through each other's code repository for nice code and new ideas though.

Dusty

dtw · 2006-12-19 19:40:12

Erm, in that case, under GPL, is there no obligation for the Frugal devs to change the name?

noriko · 2006-12-19 19:48:31

thx for clearing that up dusty ...
i actually read about this several months ago, on the frugal forums through google search i think.. after someone comlained about frugal having regex search in their pacman and we didn't ...
and btw, iphitus is right, frugal doesn't have pacman3 .. and as pointed out by dusty, they no longer have pacman .. and i'm sure the frugall devs and their community knows this, as it's been discussed or at least questoned as to why they still hadn't changed the name ..

Mikos · 2006-12-20 00:30:48

Dusty wrote:

The Frugalware devs were not happy with the development speed and decided to help out with pacman 3. They wrote many changes and patches. For some reason, these were not accepted into pacman 3. I'm not aware of the conditions, but I would guess it was partially because Judd didn't have the time to sift through them and the other Arch devs weren't interested. Perhaps there were also issues with the coding style or attitude of the Frugalware developers. Also, many of the changes the Frugalware devs have incorporated are considered to violate Arch's KISS principle by the Arch devs. This started before phrakture was working on pacman 3, in fact, I don't even think he was an Arch dev at the time.
This is where the problems started. There's no sense in laying blame for the differences. Frugalware made some changes and these changes were not incorporated into pacman 3. Chalk it up to a difference of opinion between the two groups of developers.
The Frugalware devs decided to fork the pacman 3 code so they could more easily develop their patches. By fork, I mean they copied it into their own separate code repository and are working on it independently from development on pacman 3. AFAIK, they are no longer even attempting to share their code, in the knowledge that the Arch devs don't want it.
For some reason, the Frugalware devs decided their fork should have the same name as what I will call the real pacman 3. They are developing a totally different program that happens to have a common ancestor with pacman 3, but they've given it the same name. This has caused a lot of confusion.
At this time, the difference between the two development groups is irreconcilable. Either this will change in the future and the fork will be merged, or the two programs will become increasingly different until there is no confusion between them. In the spirit of GPL, I'm sure both groups are sifting through each other's code repository for nice code and new ideas though.

I hope you are wrong. Phrakture clearly said:

For the record EVERY patch except for the silly MaxTries patch is included in our pacman.

So it looks like there is still code sharing between Frugalware pacman3 and Arch pacman3. And btw. Frugalware devs are still active on pacman-dev mailing list, so I hope you are also wrong that they are no longer attempting to share their code. Please, what is actual situation phrakture? Can you clear it up?

In my opinion the best thing would be if libalpm/pacman3 will be developed as distro-independent package manager (by Arch and Frugalware devs together). Then everyone can profit from it.

Romashka · 2006-12-20 00:38:45

Mikos wrote:

I hope you are wrong. Phrakture clearly said:
For the record EVERY patch except for the silly MaxTries patch is included in our pacman.
So it looks like there is still code sharing between Frugalware pacman3 and Arch pacman3. And btw. Frugalware devs are still active on pacman-dev mailing list, so I hope you are also wrong that they are no longer attempting to share their code. Please, what is actual situation phrakture? Can you clear it up?

I've already expressed my position on this. See the whole thread.
There was no single message from FW devs after this on pacman-dev ML.

FwPacman was a fork of Pacman for a long time (though Frugalware devs didn't admit this, "fork" definition is not very strict, but that was like Firefox/IceWeasel - very close forks).
They decided to fork it "officialy" due to personal things.
IHMO this (and copyright/authorship issues) was childish behaviour.
It's all sad.

Mikos · 2006-12-20 09:22:03

Romashka wrote:

I've already expressed my position on this. See the whole thread.
There was no single message from FW devs after this on pacman-dev ML.

I have somehow overlooked this thread. Well, after reading this, I am even more disappointed with this situation than before. From my point of view, the Arch Linux side is doing bad thing, while Frugalwere side is doing good thing. I really hate this attitude which is seen in this thread. Pacman development should be much more open from Arch Linux side...

Romashka wrote:

FwPacman was a fork of Pacman for a long time (though Frugalware devs didn't admit this, "fork" definition is not very strict, but that was like Firefox/IceWeasel - very close forks).
They decided to fork it "officialy" due to personal things.
IHMO this (and copyright/authorship issues) was childish behaviour.
It's all sad.

The only reason why IceWeasel is IceWeasel (and not Firefox) are trademark issues. Pacman isn't registered trademark, so there is nothing bad about naming Frugalwares package manager pacman-ng. And from what I see, they have also moral right to do so.

As I said before, the best thing to do would be opening pacman development as distro-independent package manager (not only Arch Linux specific package manager) and developing it together with Frugalware devs (they are objectively doing great work).

Romashka · 2006-12-20 09:43:36

Mikos wrote:

The only reason why IceWeasel is IceWeasel (and not Firefox) are trademark issues. Pacman isn't registered trademark, so there is nothing bad about naming Frugalwares package manager pacman-ng. And from what I see, they have also moral right to do so.

I mentioned this not because of trademarks. Firefox and IceWeasel are almost the same, but they are forks, not branches.
pacman-ng is just nonlogical because it's almost the same as pacman3, but anyway I cannot demand from them to call it fwpacman or anything else.
EDIT: I just took a look at their darcs and saw they, in fact did not change it to pacman-ng, but to pacman-g2. Nice.

Mikos wrote:

As I said before, the best thing to do would be opening pacman development as distro-independent package manager (not only Arch Linux specific package manager) and developing it together with Frugalware devs (they are objectively doing great work).

Pacman is open. And there were patches accepted that make adopting it for other distros more easily.

IMHO FW devs try to look "good guys" while blaming phrakture for everything, but neither of this is true.

IMHO the coldness between phracture and FW devs began from those copyright/authorship issues. Then they were upset by other things, then after simple "provide valid patch" answer they decided that they "officially" fork pacman, writing that blackmail (IMHO) message.

Someone may think that I'm not very objective, and this may be true in some cases, though I try to be objective.
Anyway it will be better if you ask them by yourself.

EDIT: They haven't included phrakture as pacman developer in AUTHORS file (yet?).
I hope this is only due to this change was made 4 weeks ago.
Probably what phrakture did is not related to their pacman-g2 much, but he at least ported libfetch to Linux (libdownload now) and replaced libftp with libdownload in pacman, and their pacman-g2 use it too.

xerverius · 2006-12-20 10:01:49

Lock this thread please :!:

User who "want" stuff without actually doing something are annoying. Their are just poking around and try blame developers for the 'slow' development, well I think 0.8 is just great (including pacman2)! All core packages are up-to-date and they just work(tm).

Of course everybody likes to see pacman 3, but pacman 2 works fine here and you can find a couple of workarounds for the 'problems' on the forum. It just takes some time to get it working.

So Mikos: put you time in posting these useless post in improving you own pacman 2, or developing pacman 3.

scarney · 2006-12-20 10:39:18

Arch's pacman is the pacman i care about, and i look forward to the next release. let the others do their thing, as long as its on the up and up.

T-Dawg · 2006-12-20 12:03:32

As distasteful as this thread may be, we'll let it go for as long as people don't get nasty with one another. Including archlinux and frugalware pacman development teams.

Watch your mouths

dtw · 2006-12-20 13:28:32

xerverius wrote:

Lock this thread please :!:

I think it is a very informative and interesting thread and I think it has more right to exist than you do to insist that it should be locked.

/me has mental picture of footballers running up to referees brandishing invisible cards...

phrakture · 2006-12-20 16:00:42

Yeah, I don't see any reason to lock this just yet.
Romashka has the right of it. The conflict between myself and VMiklos (the lead frugalware dev) began with copyright issues and refusal to comply with the GPL. From there, things got personal.

The proverbial straw was the MaxTries patch. Here's some background:
I think the MaxTries patch (which was a "solution for dial up users") is contrived. It's a half-solution to an artificial problem. I would have said as much in that thread. However, the mailing list post which said "Can you apply this?" also contained personal attacks / jabs on me. At that point, my interest in fixing a patch for something I don't care about, WHILE getting attacked, drops below 0. If the patch was valid to begin with, I would have simply ignored the personal jabs, and applied it (I think). Even if the patch was invalid and had no personal attacks, I may have. The problem is the childish behavior.

Now, the second point - if you can name me ONE open source project that accepts invalid, broken patches, I will personally send you $100 USD. There is nothing wrong with saying "this doesn't work, fix it". Just because I made an API change which invalidates the patch does not make it my fault that the patch does not work.

Now, on to the other point: "Pacman development should be much more open from Arch Linux side".

Can you provide me ANY evidence that this is not open? Simply denying a patch means crap. Would you like me to apply everything? If someone sent me a patch to make pacman spit out ascii art porn, would I be "not open" for denying it?
The MaxTries was THE FIRST PATCH I have not applied from ANYONE. Define "more open". Does that mean "accept 100% of patches all the time" instead of "accept all patches you think worthwhile"?

detto · 2006-12-20 17:20:39

Thank you phrak for some clarification. This moves it into another light, but gives me the question "why they fork pacman then?". If everything got applied into pacman-cvs (pacman3) why they claim that their pacman-g2 (ugly name imo) is so different?

dtw · 2006-12-20 17:38:01

/me runs off to code an ascii art pron patch

mucknert · 2006-12-20 17:42:54

dtw wrote:

/me runs off to code an ascii art pron patch

Whooo! Another thing that Arch has over all other distros out there!

Mikos · 2006-12-20 19:39:36

phrakture wrote:

Can you provide me ANY evidence that this is not open? Simply denying a patch means crap. Would you like me to apply everything? If someone sent me a patch to make pacman spit out ascii art porn, would I be "not open" for denying it?
The MaxTries was THE FIRST PATCH I have not applied from ANYONE. Define "more open". Does that mean "accept 100% of patches all the time" instead of "accept all patches you think worthwhile"?

I mean "more open" as "more distro-independent". Like I said, I think that pacman should be developed completely independently by Arch, Frugalware, etc. (if there were another pacman-based distribution) developers together. Every one of these developers should have write access to code repository (be it Bazaar, Mercurial, Darcs, Git or Subversion... but please not CVS, I hate CVS ;-)). This is my opinion, I can understand that you perhaps see it from other point.

Btw. please don't think of this as some sort of personal attack, it really isn't. I truly appreciate your work. I simply have been dissappointed with situation (after reading mailing list archives). Now it looks much more transparent, thanks for your clarification. I think that this discussion is really productive...

EDIT: ascii art pron patch would be great :-D

arooaroo · 2006-12-20 19:58:22

phrakture wrote:

Yeah, I don't see any reason to lock this just yet.
Romashka has the right of it. The conflict between myself and VMiklos (the lead frugalware dev) began with copyright issues and refusal to comply with the GPL. From there, things got personal.

Of course, Arch Linux has no history of that!

But seriously, this is getting out of hand. The issues here are classic open source. Just because it's open doesn't mean the gate is open for any one to do what they want, it just means the code is there if you want to do something with it.

Of course, it would be foolish to ignore perfectly good patches, but let's be clear that aims/goals of AL and FW are not necessarily equal. One of the beauties of OSS is that you can create forks if your aims/management style differs from the original. That's cool. Let them do that. Thanks for the submissions, especially those that have helped pacman; keep the personal insults to yourself (i.e. show some respect and dignity); it's only a piece of software, for god's sake.

There's also a misconception that if development is slow, then something's wrong. So what if it's quiet on the pacman front? It works pretty darn well already. Pretty robustly I'd have said. I'm not saying that it's perfect. But all the fuss about little features like regex searches which 99.9% of users could easily live without is hardly worth it, especially if it creates so much friction. What pacman needs is a solid DB backend, but that's another story...

tlaloc · 2006-12-20 20:08:35

No, tell us about it (I bet that every suggestion is welcome).

tardo · 2006-12-20 21:34:56

_slightly_ off-topic, sorry.

So what does someone have to do to contribute patches for pacman? I've looked around but don't see a roadmap for pacman 3 (is 2.9.8 the latest? or is there more?). No TODO list either. I've browsed through the pacman code and it doesn't seem to difficult to understand (at least the parts I looked over seem that way). I looked at FS but there are bugs as old as June (perhaps even older), so I have no clue which are being worked on, have been worked on, have been fixed, etc. The mailing-list is informative, but seems lately a lot of politics is involved...

Back to my original question... *besides testing* what does one have to do to contribute patches for pacman?

Arch Linux

#1 2006-12-18 22:11:46

Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#2 2006-12-18 22:14:54

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#3 2006-12-19 08:01:19

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#4 2006-12-19 15:35:38

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#5 2006-12-19 16:19:03

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#6 2006-12-19 16:28:21

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#7 2006-12-19 17:55:27

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#8 2006-12-19 19:40:12

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#9 2006-12-19 19:48:31

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#10 2006-12-20 00:30:48

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#11 2006-12-20 00:38:45

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#12 2006-12-20 09:22:03

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#13 2006-12-20 09:43:36

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#14 2006-12-20 10:01:49

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#15 2006-12-20 10:39:18

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#16 2006-12-20 12:03:32

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#17 2006-12-20 13:28:32

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#18 2006-12-20 16:00:42

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#19 2006-12-20 17:20:39

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#20 2006-12-20 17:38:01

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#21 2006-12-20 17:42:54

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#22 2006-12-20 19:39:36

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#23 2006-12-20 19:58:22

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#24 2006-12-20 20:08:35

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

#25 2006-12-20 21:34:56

Re: Pacman3 & Frugalware [split]

Board footer