xorg is not in the repos!

pain of salvation · 2007-09-06 21:00:30

FeatherMonkey wrote:

Nope but they did mention what packages you need to bring in.

Yeah, but that was not my question in my first post...

FeatherMonkey · 2007-09-06 21:06:26

You'll just have to wait and see. As shining said I'm sure something will happen, I guess its just a question of whether group or back to the old way.

synthead · 2007-09-07 04:30:02

If I want to read message boards to have a graphical environment, I'll use LFS.

I don't use LFS ...

Xilon · 2007-09-07 05:39:42

FeatherMonkey wrote:

You'll just have to wait and see. As shining said I'm sure something will happen, I guess its just a question of whether group or back to the old way.

I vote for having a group.
I don't like meta/dummy packages since they cause more problems than they solve (like Ubuntu's hideous ubuntu-desktop and similar). A group would be an elegant solution, and could also be named "xorg", so it would still be pacman -S xorg.

J_Zar · 2007-09-07 07:56:05

kensai wrote:

So please don't talk about Gentoo if you have never used it.

I used it. However it was not in my intention offend or try a flame.

I was only considering that in the Gentoo comunity there was some trouble for broken packages and for something similar to what happened in Arch these days. Moreover almost all Arch users dealt with Gentoo or came from it....

Closed.

theringmaster · 2007-09-07 13:55:28

could someone explain the difference between a group and a meta-package. That would be great. Thanks

shen · 2007-09-07 13:58:40

I am curious if there is any discussion in the dev circle to put this package back into the repos?

Cerebral · 2007-09-07 14:01:05

theringmaster wrote:

could someone explain the difference between a group and a meta-package. That would be great. Thanks

A group is a collection of packages, like xfce4

A meta-package is an actual downloadable .pkg.tar.gz that is totally empty and depends on a bunch of other packages.

The meta-package method is used when, for example, one package splits into a series of packages - pacman -Syu will pick up the 'empty' package and its new dependencies, and will pull down all the split packages. This wouldn't work with a group, because pacman will never replace a concrete package (like xorg) with a group of the same name.

shining · 2007-09-07 15:25:46

shen wrote:

I am curious if there is any discussion in the dev circle to put this package back into the repos?

A thread was started on arch-dev-public :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01515.html

it appears there is a migration issue with these xorg and xorg-clients meta packages :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01522.html

dolby · 2007-09-07 15:37:33

Cerebral wrote:

theringmaster wrote:
could someone explain the difference between a group and a meta-package. That would be great. Thanks
A group is a collection of packages, like xfce4
A meta-package is an actual downloadable .pkg.tar.gz that is totally empty and depends on a bunch of other packages.
The meta-package method is used when, for example, one package splits into a series of packages - pacman -Syu will pick up the 'empty' package and its new dependencies, and will pull down all the split packages. This wouldn't work with a group, because pacman will never replace a concrete package (like xorg) with a group of the same name.

also with a group u can choose which packages u want to install from it if u answer no to the first question pacman is gonna ask u. like the kde gnome xfce groups. etc.
i think it might be better having a group too

Last edited by dolby (2007-09-07 15:38:14)

aRcHaTe · 2007-09-07 17:06:05

i just did 2 days ago a fresh install and i miss xorg metapackage..i dont see the point WHY to remove it..if you dont wanna use..just dont it was relly fast to install arch...now its verrrryyy borring slack is really boring to me because of that..all one one...why remove it if was very helpfull? just to be more KISS concept? i disagree !!!!!

mrblister · 2007-09-07 17:09:39

So still no replacement? Meh.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-07 17:28:47

Wow, I thought it might have been replaced by now due to public outcry, but I guess it's gone. I'll update the Beginner's guide in the wiki later with a new procedure as soon as I figure out one.

aRcHaTe · 2007-09-07 18:00:54

Misfit138 wrote:

Wow, I thought it might have been replaced by now due to public outcry, but I guess it's gone. I'll update the Beginner's guide in the wiki later with a new procedure as soon as I figure out one.

whats does it have to figure its going to be just looong typing just to get xorg...by the why are arch devs planing to kill all metapackages...gnome and bla bla....JESUS!!!! just leave xorg as it was !!! dammmm...

Cerebral · 2007-09-07 18:12:26

sickhate wrote:

by the why are arch devs planing to kill all metapackages...gnome and bla bla....JESUS!!!! just leave xorg as it was !!! dammmm...

Gnome and so on are not metapackages. They're groups. There's a difference. Please calm down, this will get resolved, and in the proper way. There's discussion going on on the dev-public list. It's just an xorg package - take it easy.

shen · 2007-09-07 19:01:54

shining wrote:

shen wrote:
I am curious if there is any discussion in the dev circle to put this package back into the repos?
A thread was started on arch-dev-public :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01515.html
it appears there is a migration issue with these xorg and xorg-clients meta packages :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 01522.html

Good deal, guess I should have looked there first..Thanks for the links.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-07 19:05:07

sickhate wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:

Wow, I thought it might have been replaced by now due to public outcry, but I guess it's gone. I'll update the Beginner's guide in the wiki later with a new procedure as soon as I figure out one.
whats does it have to figure its going to be just looong typing just to get xorg..

Oops. You seem to be right, I didn't catch that at first glance.-I've been busy and should have taken my time and read everything before jumping the gun. I'll update the wiki the first chance I get with the pacman -S command.

EDIT: Updated Beginner's Guide in the wiki.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2007-09-07 19:10:45)

mrblister · 2007-09-07 19:43:41

Cerebral wrote:

sickhate wrote:
by the why are arch devs planing to kill all metapackages...gnome and bla bla....JESUS!!!! just leave xorg as it was !!! dammmm...
Gnome and so on are not metapackages. They're groups. There's a difference. Please calm down, this will get resolved, and in the proper way. There's discussion going on on the dev-public list. It's just an xorg package - take it easy.

It can be killed in 30 seconds but takes 3 days of discussion to put it back up? Oughtta get you guys working for the government. Thats what I call red tape!

Cerebral · 2007-09-07 19:57:23

mrblister wrote:

It can be killed in 30 seconds but takes 3 days of discussion to put it back up? Oughtta get you guys working for the government. Thats what I call red tape!

I'm trying to be nice here - I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return. I didn't cause this problem, and I'm trying to get it resolved in the way it should properly be done. I apologize if that takes time to do considering we're all just volunteers working on Arch in what time we have.

mrblister · 2007-09-07 20:15:23

Cerebral wrote:

mrblister wrote:
It can be killed in 30 seconds but takes 3 days of discussion to put it back up? Oughtta get you guys working for the government. Thats what I call red tape!
I'm trying to be nice here - I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return. I didn't cause this problem, and I'm trying to get it resolved in the way it should properly be done. I apologize if that takes time to do considering we're all just volunteers working on Arch in what time we have.

You arent the one who did it and I understand your frustration. I apologize for my tone, you must understand it isnt directed at you. However, you must understand my frustration as well. There are other packages that are now failing due to the xorg dependency and I have only a little time to resolve the issues that I'm dealing with.

Anyhow. Last thing I'll say on the matter.

thayer · 2007-09-07 20:38:54

I feel for the developers and maintainers that have to deal with some of the comments made in this thread. For those of you that don't understand how Linux (and Arch Linux in particular) works, here's a little run down for ya. These guys spend hundreds of hours compiling and maintaining hundreds of packages in their FREE time, and FREE of charge, so that you can use a FREE operating system on your computer.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for the people that contribute to this community and frankly I'm appalled by the poor attitude displayed here by some users. If you need immediate results and/or satisfaction guaranteed, you should drop Arch and switch to a commercially supported OS, such as Windows, OSX, or Ubuntu.

I just had to get that off my chest... thank you, Cerebral for looking into it.

Cerebral · 2007-09-07 20:43:40

mrblister wrote:

There are other packages that are now failing due to the xorg dependency and I have only a little time to resolve the issues that I'm dealing with.

If you're having trouble with packages with the xorg dep - that's an error with the packages (and they will be fixed - I planned to look at them tonight after work). In the meantime, a hack-workaround would be to check their deps (with pacman -Si package), ensure you have all the deps except xorg with pacman -S, then install the broken package with pacman -Sd to ignore depchecks.

It sucks, and I'm sorry for that. I'll see about getting those broken packages fixed tonight.

shining · 2007-09-07 20:44:21

thayer.w wrote:

I feel for the developers and maintainers that have to deal with some of the comments made in this thread. For those of you that don't understand how Linux (and Arch Linux in particular) works, here's a little run down for ya. These guys spend hundreds of hours compiling and maintaining hundreds of packages in their FREE time, and FREE of charge, so that you can use a FREE operating system on your computer.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the people that contribute to this community and frankly I'm appalled by the poor attitude displayed here by some users. If you need immediate results and/or satisfaction guaranteed, you should drop Arch and switch to a commercially supported OS, such as Windows, OSX, or Ubuntu.
I just had to get that off my chest... thank you, Cerebral for looking into it.

Oh man, thanks a lot for this, I was going to say something, but you just did it much better than me.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-07 21:28:32

Thank you Cerebral for your time and effort put forth in this and all other matters.
I too am very appreciative of all Arch devs and the time they invest. This is a very minor issue, and no one really has any right to complain.
Keep up the terrific work.

kensai · 2007-09-07 21:54:00

Thats why, the person that removed it (kth5 should have had a workaround before mindlessly and brainlessly deleting xorg. Jut as iphitus said. I just find it so logical. Because now we are just bound to complain at cerebral since kth5 just wiped his hands out of this and left other devs take care of his mess.

Last edited by kensai (2007-09-07 21:55:05)

Arch Linux

#51 2007-09-06 21:00:30

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#52 2007-09-06 21:06:26

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#53 2007-09-07 04:30:02

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#54 2007-09-07 05:39:42

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#55 2007-09-07 07:56:05

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#56 2007-09-07 13:55:28

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#57 2007-09-07 13:58:40

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#58 2007-09-07 14:01:05

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#59 2007-09-07 15:25:46

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#60 2007-09-07 15:37:33

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#61 2007-09-07 17:06:05

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#62 2007-09-07 17:09:39

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#63 2007-09-07 17:28:47

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#64 2007-09-07 18:00:54

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#65 2007-09-07 18:12:26

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#66 2007-09-07 19:01:54

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#67 2007-09-07 19:05:07

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#68 2007-09-07 19:43:41

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#69 2007-09-07 19:57:23

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#70 2007-09-07 20:15:23

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#71 2007-09-07 20:38:54

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#72 2007-09-07 20:43:40

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#73 2007-09-07 20:44:21

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#74 2007-09-07 21:28:32

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

#75 2007-09-07 21:54:00

Re: xorg is not in the repos!

Board footer