[SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

Compintuit · 2010-06-16 20:19:52

I got arch running decently two days ago, and have some spare time tonight, so I'm hoping to get more things set up. One thing I was hoping was to have as few demons running as possible to maximize battery life. Unfortunately, everything wants me to install tons of other packages - more of them than debian, actually. Compiz's gtk-window-decorator requires metacity, along with gnome-control-center which I definitely don't need. Both gnome-do and tomboy require me to install gnome-panel, which I definitely don't need. It's seeming like dependencies will kill my dream of minimalism, except on ubuntu I didn't need those packages as dependencies. So I'm confused; does Arch has more dependencies, or is there a flag I can set, like the debian recommenced option? I just don't want to install so many packages that I don't need. Thanks.

Last edited by Compintuit (2010-06-17 15:35:57)

ilusi0n · 2010-06-16 20:30:17

Hey

No, arch don't have more dependecies than the others distributions. The packages you want to install are gnome packages and that's because they need the others packages as dependencies. Of course there are alternatives that you don't need many dependencies. As for compiz I think you have alternatives just like xcompmgr. Not sure if is for all enviroments. Im using openbox.
For evitate installing a lot of dependencies you can look for alternative software that are in this thread that don't need many dependencies http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=88515

Also the beginners guide at Arch website recomends you some programs you can install as well

Last edited by ilusi0n (2010-06-16 20:33:02)

droog · 2010-06-16 20:42:35

Check the aur, there are alot of different compiz builds.

compiz-decorator-gtk-no-gnome 0.8.4-1
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31027

and many more.

wonder · 2010-06-16 22:29:58

i've found it ridiculous that you complain about gnome-panel and not about mono.

like a side note, gnome-do doesn't depend directly on gnome-panel, it depends on gnome-desktop-sharp->gnome-panel and compared with debian/ubuntu, we don't split packages into 10 packages to download only libpanel-applet

for your information tomboy doesn't download at all gnome-panel.

Last edited by wonder (2010-06-16 22:30:45)

falconindy · 2010-06-16 23:09:47

Compintuit wrote:

It's seeming like dependencies will kill my dream of minimalism

Your dreams were shattered the moment you decided to use Gnome.

To be fair, perhaps minimalism is a relative term. However, I'd wager that the average Archer considers "minimal" to be something along the lines of a tiling WM with the basic amenities.

Inxsible · 2010-06-16 23:45:04

falconindy wrote:

Compintuit wrote:
It's seeming like dependencies will kill my dream of minimalism
Your dreams were shattered the moment you decided to use Gnome.
To be fair, perhaps minimalism is a relative term. However, I'd wager that the average Archer considers "minimal" to be something along the lines of a tiling WM with the basic amenities.

Amen !!

hokasch · 2010-06-16 23:45:54

One thing I was hoping was to have as few ademons running as possible to maximize battery life.

gnome-panel, or metacity, will just take some more hd space in your case, not drain your battery faster.

Cheifchimp · 2010-06-17 00:00:10

my experience is most non-gnome packages have less dependencies than say ubuntu, even taking into consideration the debianism of splitting package into as many chunks as they can. I guess thats down to the package builders configuring out many exotic options.

gnome packages seem to include everything that ever came out of the gnome development grotto (an exageration but It sometimes feels that way to me)

ngoonee · 2010-06-17 00:22:21

"Minimal" means different things to different users. Dependencies must be downloaded and installed but don't need to be running.

Having said that, if you want minimal running processes running Gnome/KDE won't help you do that. Actually, if you want max battery life you should just give up on the whole composition idea.

Xyne · 2010-06-17 01:23:38

If I've understood the question, I think the answer is that Arch uses the default upstream dependencies. Other distributions such as Debian tend to split their packages and modularize them to enable more granular control of dependencies by default. Arch just gives you vanilla packages.

What you can do is tweak the packages yourself to remove dependencies which you are not likely to need. Read up about ABS, PKGBUIILDs and related articles in the wiki. You can also take a look at bauerbill which provides automatic patching functionality when building packages from source. It should make it relatively painless to upgrade your tweaked packages.

Compintuit · 2010-06-17 01:56:01

XYne, thank you ever so much. I was feeling a little alienated, but now I understand. I support Arch in using vanilla source, and one of the reasons I am trying to switch is so the *-dev packages are done away with. I guess not splitting other packages comes with this. I know I need to learn about those fantastic aspects of Arch you mentioned, and I now have hope as well as an incentive.

Thank you all. I'm aware that extra data on disk doesn't really hurt performance, and compiz is just eyecandy, though I don't know how much power it actually consumes. Still, there are different ways of trying to get the max out of what you have. I'm curious about what I can without loosing functionality to use less power. There were just so many gnome daemons and functions I didn't use in ubuntu; I had unrealistic expectations. I've gotten the idea to try to build a system that can both drop to a simpler, reduced functionality X or even with console apps when I need a long battery life, and I'll just deal with some dependencies I don't want for the rest. Until I master ABS, of course.

Thank you all for the advise; I feel much happier now. I'm going to mark this topic as solveansweredd now, as my initial question has been answered.

Inxsible · 2010-06-17 02:04:01

Compintuit wrote:

XYne, thank you ever so much. I was feeling a little alienated, but now I understand.

Don't worry, that was just an "initiation" that we Archers have. But now that you have passed it, welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay, because you can never leave !!!

MU HA HA HA HA !!! <evil-smile/>

ngoonee · 2010-06-17 02:16:50

Compintuit wrote:

Thank you all. I'm aware that extra data on disk doesn't really hurt performance, and compiz is just eyecandy, though I don't know how much power it actually consumes.

Compiz by itself shouldn't 'consume power' in any sense, its just that its like leaving a constant 3D display on (even when nothing moves), your graphics card never takes a rest.

sHyLoCk · 2010-06-17 02:42:24

Compiz reduces my battery power a lot in gnome and kwin in KDE even faster! However with default desktop effects of gnome, everything seems fine.

Inxsible · 2010-06-17 02:47:48

The last time I used composition was when the thing was called Beryl and Compiz was not even released. It was pretty sweet at the time because I could show it off to the windows users. But eventually I got tired and now I am much more happy with my i3 setup

Arch Linux

#1 2010-06-16 20:19:52

[SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#2 2010-06-16 20:30:17

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#3 2010-06-16 20:42:35

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#4 2010-06-16 22:29:58

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#5 2010-06-16 23:09:47

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#6 2010-06-16 23:45:04

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#7 2010-06-16 23:45:54

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#8 2010-06-17 00:00:10

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#9 2010-06-17 00:22:21

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#10 2010-06-17 01:23:38

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#11 2010-06-17 01:56:01

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#12 2010-06-17 02:04:01

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#13 2010-06-17 02:16:50

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#14 2010-06-17 02:42:24

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

#15 2010-06-17 02:47:48

Re: [SOLVED] Arch have more dependencies for packages than other disroes?

Board footer