Low Quality Packages?

Mr.Elendig · 2008-06-10 17:05:17

wonder wrote:

1) i complain because that bug is a minor one and can be fix in 5 minutes. if where a difficult and complex bug then is worth taking that time.
2) you don't understand it because that bug was open, closed and then reopen because he didn't fix the problem. and messages comes in that period.
3) if i didn't want to contribute then i never open that bug in the first place because i fix it for me. but i care that others should have the best quality of that package.
I don't want to bitch about that anymore. i apologise because i raise that subject. it seems that users aren't allowed to complain about anything linked with devs.

1) IMO, the bug report is lacking in information, and the somewhat confusing comments dosn't help. Why didn't you post exactly what you did to resolve the issue?
2) no comment
3) See 1

And for the final one:

From what I've seen here on the forums, the ML's and irc, that is not true at all. Sometimes some of the devs might be a bit "harsh", but in most cases it's 'justified' Some of the critic of late (not pointing at anyone in particular, have been unfounded and really badly formulated (with borderline personal attacs, name calling etc)

thayer · 2008-06-10 17:07:46

wonder wrote:

i think i'm not understanding how devs are working.
a developer fix and maintain only their packages or developers can fix bugs from all packages?

Typically each developer is responsible for their own packages. Each dev "owns" a numbers of packages, which they maintain, update when necessary, etc. Sometimes other developers step in and take care of major issues, say if the normal developer is away on holidays (as is the case for nearly every developer at the moment.)

It is important for all users, old and new, to understand that Arch is a volunteer project and users are expected to "do their homework" when necessary and get their hands dirty. If a developer is too busy, or sick, or just doesn't feel like doing it for whatever reason, it is up to the user to take care of their own packages--I think that's where Arch differs from many other distros. The devs help make your life a little easier, but ultimately it's up to you, the user. That's why I love Arch

As I mentioned above, a good many developers are away on holidays at the moment, so we're running a skeleton crew--even the boss is without steady Internet for a few more days.

Edit: how many more typos can I possibly find?!

Last edited by thayer (2008-06-10 17:12:23)

shining · 2008-06-10 17:09:37

wonder wrote:

Misfit138 i was ironical.
i think i'm not understanding how devs are working.
a developer fix and maintain only their packages or developers can fix bugs from all packages?

It seems to me that they try to stick with their packages, because they know them well, and it is usually enough work to do. But as I said, there are occasions when a developer is unavailable for reason X, and in that case other developers might update his packages.

PS: while writing this, I saw the reply from thayer which basically said the same

schivmeister · 2008-06-10 20:00:40

Low-quality packages != low-quality packaging != low-quality packagers

I think the proper term is less-fortunate packages The maintainer is just unfortunate that the buddy who thinks of the package as a low-quality one is not informing him of that very fact in fear of..perhaps...the package being dropped to [totally-unsupported]?

Anyway, here's fact a la show-me-code-and-possibly-intangible-evidence that a _buggy_ report (actual term for "feature request") DOES work and you need NOT fear bugs: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9241?project=5

Let me also add in, that the amount of packages the developers maintain, can be too many for some of us. A Trusted User maintains somewhere from 50 to 150 packages on average, and that's by observation (no math).

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-06-10 20:06:02)

fancris3 · 2008-06-10 20:50:41

Low Quality Packages? by SpookyET
firefox-spookyet

mozconfig
 # ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
 PKGBUILD
depends=('gtk2>=2.12.0' 'pango>=1.18.0' 'gcc-libs' 'libxt' 'libidl2' 'mozilla-common' 'desktop-file-utils' 'cairo>=1.5.2' 'nss>=3.11.7' 'curl' 'dbus-glib'  'libpng>=1.2.24-3')
makedepends=('zip' 'imagemagick' 'pkgconfig' 'python')

where its gnome-vfs ?
but its a trend , how to start a flame

finferflu · 2008-06-10 20:52:55

fancris3, that is totally unproductive.

gazj · 2008-06-10 21:27:23

If we all spent as much time notifting the dev's tu's and posting comments on aur with package problems as we do whining about it, we would all be better off.

opps, count me in as whining

Seriously though, if you don't report it in someway then how can it be fixed. A community needs commnication

Last edited by gazj (2008-06-10 21:28:01)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-06-10 21:44:22

fancris3 wrote:

Low Quality Packages? by SpookyET
firefox-spookyet

mozconfig
 # ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
 PKGBUILD
depends=('gtk2>=2.12.0' 'pango>=1.18.0' 'gcc-libs' 'libxt' 'libidl2' 'mozilla-common' 'desktop-file-utils' 'cairo>=1.5.2' 'nss>=3.11.7' 'curl' 'dbus-glib'  'libpng>=1.2.24-3')
makedepends=('zip' 'imagemagick' 'pkgconfig' 'python')

where its gnome-vfs ?
but its a trend , how to start a flame

I do not understand that example. If my english is good enough, "disable" means somthing like "switch off", "do not use". So if he is switching gnome-vfs off, he probably does so to get rid of that dependency.

pyther · 2008-06-11 02:32:41

Not that I want to get in the middle of this...

@Stefan Husmann, you are correct, however ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs is commented out

hrist · 2008-06-11 02:35:49

Stefan Husmann wrote:

fancris3 wrote:
Low Quality Packages? by SpookyET
firefox-spookyet
mozconfig
 # ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
 PKGBUILD
depends=('gtk2>=2.12.0' 'pango>=1.18.0' 'gcc-libs' 'libxt' 'libidl2' 'mozilla-common' 'desktop-file-utils' 'cairo>=1.5.2' 'nss>=3.11.7' 'curl' 'dbus-glib'  'libpng>=1.2.24-3')
makedepends=('zip' 'imagemagick' 'pkgconfig' 'python')
where its gnome-vfs ?
but its a trend , how to start a flame
I do not understand that example. If my english is good enough, "disable" means somthing like "switch off", "do not use". So if he is switching gnome-vfs off, he probably does so to get rid of that dependency.

ha! this line is commented, so the build will use the gnome-vfs stuff, but finferflu was correct, that's not helping this discussion.
-- seems like pyther was faster

Ontopic:
I saw a lot of really out of date packages, not only by version but also by PKGBUILDing standards, and I decided to adopt some of them, but this needs checking whether the author is still interested in maintaining the package before I ask a TU to orphan it.

Last edited by hrist (2008-06-11 02:37:20)

SpookyET · 2008-06-11 03:28:15

fancris3 wrote:

Low Quality Packages? by SpookyET
firefox-spookyet

mozconfig
 # ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
 PKGBUILD
depends=('gtk2>=2.12.0' 'pango>=1.18.0' 'gcc-libs' 'libxt' 'libidl2' 'mozilla-common' 'desktop-file-utils' 'cairo>=1.5.2' 'nss>=3.11.7' 'curl' 'dbus-glib'  'libpng>=1.2.24-3')
makedepends=('zip' 'imagemagick' 'pkgconfig' 'python')

where its gnome-vfs ?
but its a trend , how to start a flame

It's not a required dep. If it's found, it uses it. If it isn't, it doesn't. It does not crash and burn. Most don't use gnome. It's a gnome dependency.

Last edited by SpookyET (2008-06-11 03:31:02)

hussam · 2008-06-11 04:28:05

SpookyET wrote:

Most don't use gnome.

What? Most don't use gnome? That's delusional and absurd.

SpookyET · 2008-06-11 05:03:22

hussam wrote:

SpookyET wrote:
Most don't use gnome.
What? Most don't use gnome? That's delusional and absurd.

I base that on the monthly desktop screenshots. I do use gnome.

anykey · 2008-06-11 13:35:28

well, most people in my vicinity use KDE anyways. maybe we should modify archstats to find out what's used mostly.

oh, and at the topic (nearly forgot that):

a "low quality package" is a package that a) breaks others, b) doesn't work (even in default config), or c) both. As long as you post about them at the forums only, nothing's gonna happen about it. The bugtracker is the way to go. All three categories constitute an honest-to-goodness BUG, not a forum topic (a workaround for these bugs, however, does. So if you know how to make it work regardless of the bug, please help others in trouble).

Slowly repeat this: "Bitching at the forums won't do a thing. The Bugtracker is the way to go."

Last edited by anykey (2008-06-11 13:44:39)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-11 14:10:23

I've heard that KDE is more popular in Europe and GNOME in the US. And KDE is a German project, so it's natural that you see more KDE in Germany.

With regards to "low quality packages" I think it's not an Arch specific problem. I notice a trend in the OSS world that a lot of developers focus on new features, eye candy, etc. , and not so much on stability. The best example being KDE4. IMO "Linux is stable" is becoming more and more a false statement if you use vanilla packages.

anykey · 2008-06-11 16:44:35

yeah, because some people fantasize about having "regular, 6-month release cycles" are a good thing.

and the oss world is following them in legions.

toofishes · 2008-06-11 17:22:47

You shouldn't be too surprised that things do break in Arch- because we are a rolling release distro, we are often the first mass-distribution of a piece of software outside of the core developers circle, which means bugs quickly get exposed. Just think how much great work you are doing for all of the users of Ubuntu when they finally get their hands on the same software...6 months later.

Gullible Jones · 2008-06-12 03:32:11

Which is the whole bloody purpose of Testing branch. Things are supposed to break in Testing. Ideally, things are not supposed to break in Core and Extra, and most of the time they don't. A sanely designed rolling-release distro is *not* unstable by nature.

Last edited by Gullible Jones (2008-06-12 03:32:43)

funkyou · 2008-06-12 10:34:42

Whenever we have such funky threads/posts at the KDEmod forums (like this one, and my reply), i usually answer with something like...

- Revise your attidude. We are not your "OS Vendor" and you are not our "customer". This is community stuff, so ask politely, file bugs, provide patches and see that someone gets some attention to your problem...

- Dont piss me off, dont kill my fun. I am doing you a favour here, and i am not your personal "Mr. Fix-It"

Honestly, i never experienced a "low quality package" so far. Sometimes a feature i want is missing or something (but that has always a reason), and then i rebuild the pkg though abs, so there is no problem for me... Arch makes it easy

TPJ · 2008-06-18 21:09:48

I was looking for a thread on packages problems, and I have found this one. So, here are my 2c.

Recently I have installed Arch on my box. I have installed all the applications I need, eg. mrxvt. The X server hasn't been installed though. I think that packages which run in X should depend on X server... But it seems it's possible to install e.g. a termial emulator without istalling the X server, because of (weird?) package dependencies.

I have also installed the moc package (a console audio player). After I ran it, I got messages about missing libraries. The app started, but I wasn't able to play any files. I have solved that problem by manually installing all the missing libraries. I think all of them should be dependencies for the moc package.

A month or two ago I found out that the LyX package (a WYSIWYM LaTeX editor) is out of date. I fixed that package (the only thing I changed was the version number), built it with makepkg, and installed it. And it works. I send an e-mail to this package maintainer, but I got no response. The package in the extra repository is still out of date.

In my personal opinion, something's wrong with "the Arch way", if this is what the "Arch way" means.

The question is: what can I do about it? If sending e-mails to package maintainers is not enough, if so many users are happy with packages running in X and having no X server in their dependencies. Am I doomed to find another distro?

And now somethng on the "users vs. developers" topic

thayer wrote:

It is important for all users, old and new, to understand that Arch is a volunteer project and users are expected to "do their homework" when necessary and get their hands dirty. (...) that's where Arch differs from many other distros. The devs help make your life a little easier, but ultimately it's up to you, the user.

If you're right, I should take a look for some other distro. Because I definitelly have no time to work on packages I use. I want to use my system, not to develop/fix it. All in all, I'm an Arch user.

But... Are you sure you're right? I am also an OS developer (I don't do it for living, though), and I think I'm doing something for my users. I don't expect them to send me any patches, or to fix my bugs. All I want from them is using my software, and telling me what do they think about it.

shining wrote:

(...) there are occasions when a developer is unavailable for reason X, and in that case other developers might update his packages.

wonder was complaining about a bug not being fixed for a very long time. How long can developers be unavailable?

Don't take me wrong, I understand that developing Arch is not a job for living. I work on some OS projects myself and I'm not being paid for this... But I still find myself responsible for the (OS) software I work on.

funkyou wrote:

We are not your "OS Vendor" and you are not our "customer". (...) dont kill my fun. (...)

You know, a market is a market. No matter whether you provide something for money, or not: if you don't treat your users as customers, they'll find someone who will. You might don't like it, but it's the fact. How much fun is developing software used by small number of users?

Don't take me wrong, really. I just want to show you the other side perspective. (Besides I think that treating users as consumers leads to higher code quality.)

shining · 2008-06-18 22:08:01

TPJ wrote:

I was looking for a thread on packages problems, and I have found this one. So, here are my 2c.
Recently I have installed Arch on my box. I have installed all the applications I need, eg. mrxvt. The X server hasn't been installed though. I think that packages which run in X should depend on X server... But it seems it's possible to install e.g. a termial emulator without istalling the X server, because of (weird?) package dependencies.
I have also installed the moc package (a console audio player). After I ran it, I got messages about missing libraries. The app started, but I wasn't able to play any files. I have solved that problem by manually installing all the missing libraries. I think all of them should be dependencies for the moc package.
A month or two ago I found out that the LyX package (a WYSIWYM LaTeX editor) is out of date. I fixed that package (the only thing I changed was the version number), built it with makepkg, and installed it. And it works. I send an e-mail to this package maintainer, but I got no response. The package in the extra repository is still out of date.
In my personal opinion, something's wrong with "the Arch way", if this is what the "Arch way" means.
The question is: what can I do about it? If sending e-mails to package maintainers is not enough, if so many users are happy with packages running in X and having no X server in their dependencies. Am I doomed to find another distro?

You must be kidding, right? That question has been answered like a hundred time in this very same thread.

You know, a market is a market. No matter whether you provide something for money, or not: if you don't treat your users as customers, they'll find someone who will. You might don't like it, but it's the fact. How much fun is developing software used by small number of users?

You know, some people have fun by developing software they use and like, others have fun by getting the maximum audience. To each his own, right?
Arch is likely not the distribution you want, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just move on, there is nothing to see here.
There are several fine distribution which target a wider user base than Arch.

Don't take me wrong, really. I just want to show you the other side perspective. (Besides I think that treating users as consumers leads to higher code quality.)

Which other side? As far as I can see, we were many simple Arch users to post here.

SpookyET · 2008-06-18 22:14:15

shining, you're attitude is not constructive.

shining · 2008-06-18 22:35:40

SpookyET wrote:

shining, you're attitude is not constructive.

That is quite funny coming from you, given that this whole thread is basically explaining how YOUR attitude is not constructive.

Anyway, let me try to explain to you and TPJ once more how to have a constructive attitude in Arch:
When you find a bug, don't open a thread on the forums saying the quality of packages suck. Instead, investigate what the problem is, and report it.
If the problem is not solved after a reasonable delay, there are two possibilities :
1) your report was not good enough or just plain wrong, in that case just blame yourself
2) lack of manpower, which is why Arch is recruiting as we speak : http://archlinux.org/news/397/

neotuli · 2008-06-19 00:19:10

TPJ wrote:

I was looking for a thread on packages problems, and I have found this one. So, here are my 2c.
Recently I have installed Arch on my box. I have installed all the applications I need, eg. mrxvt. The X server hasn't been installed though. I think that packages which run in X should depend on X server... But it seems it's possible to install e.g. a termial emulator without istalling the X server, because of (weird?) package dependencies.

That's sort-of correct. It indirectly depends on libx11. You may not have an x-server running or installed, but the program will run and tell you that because it isn't linked against the x-server itself, but libx11, so the dependency is correct, albeit a bit weird if you're unfamiliar with dynamic libraries. Basically, packages depend on what they're linked to, that is, what they *technically* depend on in order to run, rather than logical dependencies.

I have also installed the moc package (a console audio player). After I ran it, I got messages about missing libraries. The app started, but I wasn't able to play any files. I have solved that problem by manually installing all the missing libraries. I think all of them should be dependencies for the moc package.

You'll notice that the install message tells you about these optional dependencies...

# pacman -S moc
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets: moc-2.4.3-2  

Total Download Size:    0.16 MB
Total Installed Size:   0.42 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] 
:: Retrieving packages from extra...
 moc-2.4.3-2-i686         162.4K  163.1K/s 00:00:01 [---------------------] 100%
checking package integrity...
(1/1) checking for file conflicts                   [---------------------] 100%
(1/1) installing moc                                [---------------------] 100%
:: moc plugins may require the following additional packages:
:: ffmpeg, speex, taglib, libmpcdec

A month or two ago I found out that the LyX package (a WYSIWYM LaTeX editor) is out of date. I fixed that package (the only thing I changed was the version number), built it with makepkg, and installed it. And it works. I send an e-mail to this package maintainer, but I got no response. The package in the extra repository is still out of date.

You'll notice we're currently seeking to fill some package maintainer positions. Have you applied yet?

In my personal opinion, something's wrong with "the Arch way", if this is what the "Arch way" means.

As I've hopefully explained, the Arch way is about technical correctness, and about minimalism. The out of date issue is certainly not part of that, and as I said we're taking corrective action.

The question is: what can I do about it? If sending e-mails to package maintainers is not enough, if so many users are happy with packages running in X and having no X server in their dependencies. Am I doomed to find another distro?

I can't help you there, but please, spare us the nonesense, no one really cares about your drama-filled distro hopping experience. And I think I speak not only for the people that might have to read the garbage here on the Arch forums, but everywhere else on the internet as well.

thayer wrote:
It is important for all users, old and new, to understand that Arch is a volunteer project and users are expected to "do their homework" when necessary and get their hands dirty. (...) that's where Arch differs from many other distros. The devs help make your life a little easier, but ultimately it's up to you, the user.
If you're right, I should take a look for some other distro. Because I definitelly have no time to work on packages I use. I want to use my system, not to develop/fix it. All in all, I'm an Arch user.

To clarify, most of the Arch developers are really in this for themselves. Developing a distro that suits *our* needs, scratching our own itches, and so on. If our itches happen to be the same as yours, wonderful! If not, well, I suppose you could make your itches mine for the low price of 30usd/hr.

But... Are you sure you're right? I am also an OS developer (I don't do it for living, though), and I think I'm doing something for my users. I don't expect them to send me any patches, or to fix my bugs. All I want from them is using my software, and telling me what do they think about it.

As I said, that's not really what we're here for. Sounds a bit selfish, I know, but I suppose our perspectives are different. Then again, by the sounds of it, you're not using your own OS, and that makes sense, since you're not making someing *you* want, but your making something someone else does. You certainly deserve a big pat on the back if you really are so selfless, but alas, most of us are not.

shining wrote:
(...) there are occasions when a developer is unavailable for reason X, and in that case other developers might update his packages.
wonder was complaining about a bug not being fixed for a very long time. How long can developers be unavailable?
Don't take me wrong, I understand that developing Arch is not a job for living. I work on some OS projects myself and I'm not being paid for this... But I still find myself responsible for the (OS) software I work on.

Well, developers can be unavailable... you know... forever, that's why we're looking for new ones.

funkyou wrote:
We are not your "OS Vendor" and you are not our "customer". (...) dont kill my fun. (...)
You know, a market is a market. No matter whether you provide something for money, or not: if you don't treat your users as customers, they'll find someone who will. You might don't like it, but it's the fact. How much fun is developing software used by small number of users?

That's all good, and it's true, a market is a market. So I suppose it's a good thing we're not marketing Arch. I don't treat my users as customers, I treat them as collegues. If that's not the relationship someone is looking for, there's no reason to try and twist my arm into having it their way (which an unfortunate number of people try to do), they should do like you say and move on to someone that *does* do it their way. Shoot, I wish more people listened to you instead of sticking around here whining like kids that can't have candy. Also, I must say, I'm finding it increasingly more plesant to work on software with smaller communities.

Don't take me wrong, really. I just want to show you the other side perspective. (Besides I think that treating users as consumers leads to higher code quality.)

I hope you don't take me wrong either, and I hope I've shown you my perspective. About code quality, I'm not sure I want to start that argument. In a lot of cases, I bet you're right, but I think the mozilla project might be a good starting point for a counter-argument there

toofishes · 2008-06-19 00:29:27

neotuli++

I'm glad all the devs (+shining) are on the same page. However crude it sounds, we could care less if we lose users because they get mad because package X is buggy. Unless one of us cares enough about package X, feature Y, or user Z, it isn't on our front burner.

And I'm with neotuli- if you send 30 USD/hour my way, I will be more than happy to fix all your problems.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-06-10 17:05:17

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#27 2008-06-10 17:07:46

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#28 2008-06-10 17:09:37

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#29 2008-06-10 20:00:40

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#30 2008-06-10 20:50:41

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#31 2008-06-10 20:52:55

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#32 2008-06-10 21:27:23

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#33 2008-06-10 21:44:22

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#34 2008-06-11 02:32:41

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#35 2008-06-11 02:35:49

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#36 2008-06-11 03:28:15

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#37 2008-06-11 04:28:05

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#38 2008-06-11 05:03:22

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#39 2008-06-11 13:35:28

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#40 2008-06-11 14:10:23

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#41 2008-06-11 16:44:35

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#42 2008-06-11 17:22:47

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#43 2008-06-12 03:32:11

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#44 2008-06-12 10:34:42

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#45 2008-06-18 21:09:48

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#46 2008-06-18 22:08:01

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#47 2008-06-18 22:14:15

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#48 2008-06-18 22:35:40

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#49 2008-06-19 00:19:10

Re: Low Quality Packages?

#50 2008-06-19 00:29:27

Re: Low Quality Packages?

Board footer