Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

stonecrest · 2008-03-18 20:33:23

And I realize it sounds very diplomatic to say "lets file a bug report", etc etc. But for those of us that have seen the discussions for 5 years (yes, if you Google search yourself, you'll see that I have participated in these discussions many times before) have also seen the bug reports/feature requests for 5 years and the end results.

For example:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/3459: "Final word here: We don't distribute info pages. We just don't."

The reason no one has gone the path of making info packages, like is always suggested, is because that solution is ridiculously inefficient, doesn't follow the Arch Way, and there are better solutions. I would have no problem whatsoever with info docs not being included with the packages if there was a single, sane reason for doing it. But such a reason has never been explained - presumably because one doesn't exist.

sweiss · 2008-03-18 20:54:51

Well, I usually enjoy reading things when I do not have an internet connection available, so I am also one who is in favour of the documentation.

I don't like the somewhat excuse that it's against "The Arch Way", because that makes it into some ground rule, which it isn't. It is simply a decision taken by the developers. Just as it was decided to slay libtool - That's not because libtool was against "The Arch Way".

And please, this is Arch, not Debian. So please stop overusing that "Arch Way" mantra. The beauty of Arch is that it has no way - it is dynamic, it dares, nothing is carved in stone. The only ground rule is that there are no ground rules.

neotuli · 2008-03-18 21:19:06

So what was that rsync address?

I didn't quite catch it.

shining · 2008-03-18 21:31:41

neotuli wrote:

So what was that rsync address?
I didn't quite catch it.

If anything happens, it should be the sane way that Travis described :

That said, I'm ambivalent towards them - I couldn't care either way. However, if we decide to bow to pressure and start including them, I'm not going to go and rebuild all of my packages right away just so they're included, and I bet most devs agree - they'd be introduced gradually, as packages were rebuilt over time. It won't be a sudden thing, if it ever does happen.

The other ways don't seem to make any sense.

alex_anthony · 2008-03-18 21:40:36

these guys are building all these packages for you already! Be grateful goddammit. If it matters so much to you that you need to argue with the devs, then build them in yourselves or find a distro that does.
Thats the beauty that is open source. You can choose to do what YOU want. But you can't decide for the devs what they should do...

PS can someone give me an example of the difference between a man page and an info page? I also never knew that info pages existed before this thread, so I don't exactly miss them

iphitus · 2008-03-18 23:36:14

dav7 wrote:

I forget exactly which ones that do so, but some manpages that don't give alot of help regarding certain commands reference the info command. The ls manpage does list the options fairly comprehensively, but the bottom of the manpage is a classic example of what I'm trying to say:

Only the GNU tools really need info, and in most cases their man pages are sufficient. It's not really the end of the world. It's only rare occasions you need these pages, and given how network oriented arch is, google is there.

From what I've gleamed, info's kinda huge, and plenty of people don't want it there to just get some extra documentation for the GNU tools that they probably won't read anyway.

So... there's ways around this.

1) Seeing as it's primarily the GNU tools that use info, put a package on the AUR info-pages-gnu or something. I'm pretty sure they all have ./configure options to just build docos too -- or you can mess with make yourself. It's not that hard.
2) Or there's this, which I raised last time it came up: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2731
3) phrakture's offered to rsync packages+info pages.

You can wave hands as much as you like people, but the developers don't respond to hand waving. Actions speak louder than words, and if I've learnt one thing while working on Arch, words do bugger all -- stuff only happens when the code is written.

We've shown that we're all pretty ambivalent to info pages and probably won't do anything ourselves even if you wave your arms at orbital velocity. But if one of you guys do something, this might get somewhere. There's three options above, pick one. 2 of them are pretty darn easy - heck, I've even gifted you a package for the second one. It's orphaned, someone do something with it.

Patches/Code welcome.

Last edited by iphitus (2008-03-18 23:37:15)

Cerebral · 2008-03-19 16:42:00

dav7 wrote:

Why doesn't Arch Linux have the info command?
This has me infuriated beyond words.

dav7 wrote:

What sane reason exists for the info pages not being included with Arch Linux or being made available as an official package?

carlocci wrote:

While I find the lack of info files demeaning and I think most of the reasons for it to be BS

stonecrest wrote:

And it's not going to change because devs apparently know better than us what we want on our systems.

You know what, I've been thinking about it, and it's attitudes like these that make me want to say "no" all the more.

Let me say this upfront - I truly, honestly don't care. I've never missed info pages on my system, but I wouldn't be upset having them in official packages. If we provide them, or if we don't, I don't care.

However, people coming in saying the lack of info pages "infuriates" them, demanding "sane" reasons for why we don't include them, implying we're demeaning our users for leaving them out, or implying we want, in some way, to control our users' systems really ticks me off.

Each one of us is doing what we do in our free time with absolutely no compensation for your benefit. We provide everything to you, ISOs, the website, the packages in our repos, pacman, etc, etc... at ZERO benefit to ourselves. We gain nothing by providing these things, freely accessible, so that you can make use of the same systems we do.

We do it because we think Arch is cool, daddio, and we're glad you agree Arch is cool enough to use as your own systems. However, by the act of installing Arch, all of a sudden some people think we owe them, and these people demand we make changes to Arch to suit their needs - if we don't make these changes, we infuriate people, we "know what's best" for our users. That's untrue - we go out of our way to make customization of your Arch boxes simple and easy - we provide a single, run-once command to get ALL of our build-scripts, and another run-once command to rebuild any package in our official repos the way you want it. Go to town on your systems, have fun - we don't mind.

So, back to the whole info thing - we don't provide info pages because we've never provided info pages. We just don't do it. Period. If that isn't enough reason for you, then I apologize for not being 'sane' enough. Maybe someday we will provide info pages. In that case, we'll provide them because we just do. Period.

I'm sick of people taking all the hard work each and every developer puts into this distro, and telling them "It's not good enough. Make it better, or I'll get mad."

zodmaner · 2008-03-19 18:00:45

alex_anthony wrote:

these guys are building all these packages for you already! Be grateful goddammit.

Cerebral wrote:

Let me say this upfront - I truly, honestly don't care. I've never missed info pages on my system, but I wouldn't be upset having them in official packages. If we provide them, or if we don't, I don't care.

Cerebral wrote:

I'm sick of people taking all the hard work each and every developer puts into this distro, and telling them "It's not good enough. Make it better, or I'll get mad."

These are my feelings too.

I mean, Arch wiki have stated explicitly that no info page is included, so you should know that from beginning. You should know that even before start to install Arch for that matter.

To complain that Arch lacks info page is like complaining about Debian's policy to split packages into pieces.

Also, unlike for example in the case of Debian's policy on package splitting, it is far easier to include info page in Arch and nobody prevents you from building and including them yourself! Hell, phrakture even says that he would sync the info page if only someone would start building them. What more could you want?

Seriously guys, if you forget, Arch is a small distro, and the devs are having their hands full as it is. Requesting something that the majority of users doesn't need and trivial enough that most experienced Arch user could do themself is very unreasonable. Instate of complaining, why don't you help the devs out by start building packages and posting them on AUR? I'm sure if you ask most devs and users would be more than glad to give you advise on how to include info page into the package. It would also benefits users who need them. Why don't you do that?

Sorry if I offense anyone, but I don't really understand why we're making such a big fuss over such trivial matter.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-03-19 18:11:59)

dyscoria · 2008-03-19 18:23:47

zodmaner wrote:

but I don't really understand why we're making such a big fuss over such trivial matter

Because the OP decided to use such diplomatic phrases as:

dav7 wrote:

Why doesn't Arch Linux have the info command? <underlined + bold>
This has me infuriated beyond words.
WHY ISN'T THERE A PACKAGE FOR IT?! <nicely capitalised>
...I was trying to appear infuriated, which I am

You know what infuriates me? Why doesn't Ubuntu have /etc/rc.conf dammit?!?!! There is no SANE reason for this tragic error! I'm gonna stroll over there and tell those silly Ubuntu people exactly why this infuriates me and if I look infuriated enough then they'll make a change for sure.

dschauer · 2008-03-19 20:06:25

Cerebral wrote:

We do it because we think Arch is cool, daddio, and we're glad you agree Arch is cool enough to use as your own systems. However, by the act of installing Arch, all of a sudden some people think we owe them, and these people demand we make changes to Arch to suit their needs - if we don't make these changes, we infuriate people
...
I'm sick of people taking all the hard work each and every developer puts into this distro, and telling them "It's not good enough. Make it better, or I'll get mad."

Well said Cerebral.

All too often this is the case for many free software projects. Certain users who chose to use a particular project's distro/app/library/whatever somehow feel that the developers somehow owe them (the user) a great deal because, after all, the user chose that particular project over someone else's.

Free software can be frustrating at times, I know. One invests time and learning into a particular project, and when it does something disagreeable or leaves out something that is seemingly important. But that does not warrant getting upset at the developers and maintainers of the project. One could argue that developers and maintainers of public projects have some sort of social responsibility for what they are providing. In one sense they do. If a developer purposely puts something malicious in mature project that has earned the trust of many individuals, then yes, their is cause to be upset. But this case (info pages not included) is not even remotely related to anything like that. Arch is free. If it suits one's purposes, great! If it does not, offer kind suggestions, and contribute fixes/additions. Otherwise, keep your negative emotions to yourself. Sorry to be blunt about it, but getting upset does not help anyone.

Thanks Cerebral for being a developer of Arch, and for all the time and effort you have put into it. (And thanks to all the other Arch developers as well, for all the work you have put into Arch, to make Arch what it is today).

Bestiapeluda · 2008-03-19 20:33:45

Thanks Cerebral for being a developer of Arch, and for all the time and effort you have put into it. (And thanks to all the other Arch developers as well, for all the work you have put into Arch, to make Arch what it is today).

Get a room !!

stonecrest · 2008-03-19 20:41:16

iphitus wrote:

You can wave hands as much as you like people, but the developers don't respond to hand waving. Actions speak louder than words, and if I've learnt one thing while working on Arch, words do bugger all -- stuff only happens when the code is written.
Patches/Code welcome.

No one's waving hands. But there's no point in taking the time to do this when developers have consistently said that it's never going to change. Phrakture said it. Cerebral said it. I'd be happy to submit a patch but it won't be accepted.

dschauer · 2008-03-19 21:17:34

Bestiapeluda wrote:

Thanks Cerebral for being a developer of Arch, and for all the time and effort you have put into it. (And thanks to all the other Arch developers as well, for all the work you have put into Arch, to make Arch what it is today).
Get a room !!

No thanks. I don't think we need a business conference room to discuss arch in person. The Public Arch Forums, mailing lists, and IRC forums are sufficient.

Misfit138 · 2008-03-19 21:44:07

I feel it wise to close this thread at this point...before it reaches [critical mass] n. a sociodynamic term to describe the existence of sufficient momentum in a social system such that the momentum becomes self-sustaining and fuels further growth.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2008-03-20 00:55:20)

Dusty · 2008-03-19 22:04:56

critical mess, rather. Thanks Misfit.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-03-18 20:33:23

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#27 2008-03-18 20:54:51

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#28 2008-03-18 21:19:06

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#29 2008-03-18 21:31:41

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#30 2008-03-18 21:40:36

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#31 2008-03-18 23:36:14

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#32 2008-03-19 16:42:00

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#33 2008-03-19 18:00:45

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#34 2008-03-19 18:23:47

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#35 2008-03-19 20:06:25

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#36 2008-03-19 20:33:45

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#37 2008-03-19 20:41:16

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#38 2008-03-19 21:17:34

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#39 2008-03-19 21:44:07

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

#40 2008-03-19 22:04:56

Re: Why doesn't Arch have the `info' command?

Board footer