Unsupported lib's and software

BluPhoenyx · 2003-01-20 22:31:16

Ok, made a specific topic for this as I feel it deserves more discussion (I hope this isn't too presumptuous.) The name may be a bit misleading as it isn't Gnome 1.4 specific which is what started this discussion. TOPIC=gnome1.4-libs and packages... However, this could also include other application systems.

Please try not to answer any posts too hastily. Take some time to articulate your thoughts and if possible, support your point of view. It is not my intention to start a flame war. Instead, I would like to hear what others have to say.

FWIW, I'm not picking on Blaavis but it was his topic I had originally responded to.

Blaasvis wrote:

The reason why a distro must have choice is very simpel. i want to have the choice of apps too use.... if i don't like mozilla because it's too slow.... now days i can go for Phoenix and galeon.

I don't disagree with you about choice and I think the other post made that pretty obvious. That wasn't even the point I was making. I would simply prefer that the primary distribution system, be it cdrom, ftp or whatever not be cluttered with stuff which is deprecated or which I won't use much, if at all.

I actually like Galeon and plan on working with Galeon2 soon, time permitting. However, if I wanted a distro which offered everything under the sun I can easily get one of several floating around. Ok, you might argue that they don't support the 686 and this is true to a certain degree but overall tests on my system only show slight improvements in certain areas once the kernel is properly recompiled. It is not that complicated a matter to rebuild those things which might benefit from 686 support. For those users who don't want to know how to maintain/upgrade their systems, well that's what tech's are for. Right?

As I mentioned in my post in the original topic it is possible for you or anyone else to make such packages available as you see fit. The design of AL (as I understand it) easily allows for this. It is one of AL's better features whether intentional or not AND it allows for the developers to continue building a stable OS which doesn't require multiple CD's or long downloads to install.

Blaasvis wrote:

most of the linux users love the choice between gnome, kde,flubox or windowmaker and many more.
if you look at Suse they almost force new users to start using kde...... i don't think that's right.

Can you speak for all those other users you mention? Just curious. I can only speak for the ones I have installed and maintain systems for. They have all wanted a simple to use desktop which only require modest amounts of the system's resources to run. I see more speed improvements (vs 686 compilation) when running a program in an XFCE or ROX environment compared to running the same app in KDE or Gnome. Of course, this also depends on the application involved along with how the latter 2 desktops are configured.

Almost every distro has their favorite 'desktop' I suppose and for many it's KDE. They pick KDE because they want to compete with that OS from Redmond. RedHat used to prefer Gnome as it was intended to be the Gnu desktop system. Unfortunately, many of it's apps weren't stable enough or developed enough for the average desktop so many people still wound up using KDE or found alternatives. All the alternatives I've found tend to work as well and usually better than a particular desktop's standard application.

WindowMaker, fluxbox and 'many more' are simply window managers and don't normally require all the extra support that the Gnome or KDE desktop environments require. Of course they also don't offer all the extra built in functionality (a debatable feature due to complex library requirements) either. This is usually why they operate much faster.

Blaasvis wrote:

the nice thing about archlinux is that you wont have too install all the apps if you don't want evolution or gnome, you don't have too install it.

That was already obvious (I know I have mentioned this before) however, I would also prefer they remained as options for only those users who require them. At least until they become part of the Gnome2 (or whichever) distribution. That was why I suggested an alternate ftp or 'unsupported' section for pacman. FWIW, I like the fact that AL is looking to the future with their OS as opposed to others who tend to include older versions of libraries and programs. I applaud their effort.

I guess what I'm trying to say with all of this, I don't want AL to become like the other distros. There's too many of them now. The developers have set a proper course to which AL should strive to follow. We users should follow it also.

Just a mention also. GTK does not imply Gnome. Gnome was built upon the GTK library (among many others) to use it's GUI functions. Many programs which use GTK don't require Gnome.

Arielext · 2003-01-21 10:25:56

I've read it carefully and I agree with you.
Maybe it's a good idea to split up "unofficial" in "gnome" "kde" 'window managers" "console" and so on.

Only include the part you want, forget about the rest, everybody happy

sarah31 · 2003-01-21 11:49:19

there will soon be an unstable tree and all not-working-quite-right, new and big upgrades will got here. as for splitting the groupings up more...there are enough already i do nor see any reason to get to the point of sub dividing the subdirectories.

Arielext · 2003-01-21 13:20:41

No I mean splitting it all up.
So that pacman won't be able to download gnome stuff if I don't want to. Pacman will tell me that the package I want to download needs gnome, but since I specified I didn't want to see any gnome related stuff the download will stop.
Or something like that.

sarah31 · 2003-01-21 15:13:01

well if a package requires gnome components and you don't want gnome then you don't want the package at all. the depends are specified in the PKGBUILD and if a package requires gnome then having a specific tree split can do nothing to prevent that. how the tree is organize now is based on administrating it is easier to administrate about six to eight subdirectories than one for each catagory. Personally i don't want to see much more catagories than unofficial already has and the way it is already set up allows a user to install what they want. if a package has a depend you would rather not have then, like i mentioned earlier, you don't install that package.

ody · 2003-01-21 18:39:54

I aint read all child posts to the parent so sorry fi I step on toes.. Im a lil wankered and trying my best ;p

1: theres no *default* desktop with AL, this I think is a good thing, it gets ppl of there arses and experiment with window managers, which as far as Im concerned is a good thing.

2: I dont think AL will ever be a redhat, supporting previous major distro releases is a dumb ass thing, if it only works in a previous distro and not the next than theres somthing fundementaly wrong with the distro in question.... nuff said.

My point may be fucked up, but Ill be back sober as a jude tommorow to back em up.

peace!

BluPhoenyx · 2003-01-21 20:56:16

The intent was/is not to make more work for the distro's developers and maintainers. That was why I suggested a user supported group such as 'unsupported' or something similar. This way those programs that some people can't live without can still be packaged and distributed without bloating the distro. Again as mentioned, said group can exist anywhere as long as it's location is known.

Likewise, it's not just about Gnome, KDE or window managers although these were the items which started the discussion. There are a lot of other programs which people still use and as AL grows you will hear about them. Most window managers, by themselves are small and generally keep their dependencies low. This is not true for the 2 big desktops where library dependencies are many and overall size of the system is huge.

Maybe I have a different point of view from others since I live in a rural area and dial-up 56k is the fastest access I get. I might not care as much if download times were lower. Then again, perhaps I would. After all, one thing about AL which I like is it's slim size without lost functionality. Also, I have never liked using large, sluggish desktop systems.

Arielxt's grouping idea is another possibility. Slightly different and definitely more complex than my original. IMHO, this is more in line with a front end for pacman instead of changing pacman itself. An interesting idea though. It wouldn't even have to be GUI so maybe sarah31 would use it.

apeiro · 2003-01-21 21:05:27

BluPhoenyx wrote:

The intent was/is not to make more work for the distro's developers and maintainers. That was why I suggested a user supported group such as 'unsupported' or something similar. This way those programs that some people can't live without can still be packaged and distributed without bloating the distro. Again as mentioned, said group can exist anywhere as long as it's location is known.

Exactly. That's what the unofficial repository is for. And to maintain a semblance of stability within unofficial, we will be opening an "unstable" repository soon, for those bleeding-edge apps that some people want and other people don't. Both of these repostories are inactive by default. They must be explicitly enabled by the user in /etc/pacman.conf.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-01-20 22:31:16

Unsupported lib's and software

#2 2003-01-21 10:25:56

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#3 2003-01-21 11:49:19

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#4 2003-01-21 13:20:41

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#5 2003-01-21 15:13:01

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#6 2003-01-21 18:39:54

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#7 2003-01-21 20:56:16

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

#8 2003-01-21 21:05:27

Re: Unsupported lib's and software

Board footer