Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

krix · 2006-07-03 18:16:15

Just reading this forum and i need to put some of my opinion about this.

First.

1. We not forked pacman (not now, still not, no we dont, etc..)

Second.

2. We working together with archlinux pacman development team, we posted tons of patches to improve functionality and introduce new features and other stuffs. Just see the pacman-dev archive page and you will see what i'm talking about. So not ALL features was in arch CVS already like somebody saying that.

3. We bumped our version number because we got a pacman 2.9.9.9.9.99999999.99999999999999 schema because at every new patch or modification we need to bump the last version number. So we tought that we wont use 2.9.9.9.999999999999 style anymore. Instead we did a simple jump from 2.9.999.9999999 to 3.X.X version style and trying to continue our development with this smaller version numbering.

As i see the pacman3 development is slow down now. We are still "backporting" patches for pacman3 arch cvs version since we don't forked pacman. We like to help in pacman3 development. We are sending many patches. We are working on it.

So afterall, our pacman3 is NOT a fork. We wont rename it or anything else.

If we will fork pacman, then we will rename it and reproject it or whatever we call this. But this isn't our plan for now.

I still see a chance for working two team together and improve pacman3 .

And why we using a darcs tree for ""our"" pacman3 ? Because easier to implement new features and easier to find bugs, fixing it, etc.

And for last: pacman3 arch linux cvs version is very very different than frugalware's pacman3 (which is in darcs) . This is because we applied many patches of ours and worked on it faster, but we backported our patches and sent to pacman-dev. We can't do anything if our patches not applied to arch CVS version. (btw many of them already applied)

So i hope this comment was enough for inform all of you in here.

Ps.: don't want to start a flame or something else.

Best regards

Christian Hamar alias krix
Frugalware Development Team
Hungary

kensai · 2006-07-03 18:26:06

Yet arch linux is too lazy to work faster on pacman 3. So Frugalware will always have the lead in this IMHO. I have used frugalware and yes their pacman is better in all aspects.

rohandhruva · 2006-07-03 18:40:36

Are you arch guys getting jealous ? Atleast, it sounds like that. What do you mean, "they must change the name" .. They may damn well use any name they please, and what say does anyone have over it ? Why this is sudden unrest over frugalware naming scheme ? It sounds bad, and extremely jealous, from the part of arch.

Note that I am not speaking on behalf of frugalware, these are my own views. And, I like and use both the distros.

hypermegachi · 2006-07-03 19:03:22

iphitus wrote:

It's a split from Arch's pacman3, which has been available in CVS for months.

where is the server? the one on the website is just pkgbuilds for the stable pacman version.

timm · 2006-07-03 19:07:47

Yet arch linux is too lazy to work faster on pacman 3

Given the amount of work the devs do on this distro; and given what we all pay for their work; someone accusing them of laziness bothers me a lot.

kakabaratruskia · 2006-07-03 19:32:57

After reading the pacman-dev mailing list, I believe the problem with arch's pacman development is that Aurelien Forret (former pacman developer) dissapeared of the map, and contact was lost with him. Phrakture has recently taken his place. So development will probably start again on this side. Three hurrays for Phrakture...

luke · 2006-07-03 20:01:31

timm wrote:

Yet arch linux is too lazy to work faster on pacman 3
Given the amount of work the devs do on this distro; and given what we all pay for their work; someone accusing them of laziness bothers me a lot.

I second timms point. Lazy they are not, and I am very thankful for all that they do.

kensai · 2006-07-03 21:05:50

timm wrote:

Yet arch linux is too lazy to work faster on pacman 3
Given the amount of work the devs do on this distro; and given what we all pay for their work; someone accusing them of laziness bothers me a lot.

Sorry I didn't mean lazy in that way. I mean lazy in the way that when you are doing lots of things like updating packages and mantaining them you just feel lazy to work on something that is already working. Don't get me wrong their pacman is better as I said but our pacman is usable and Arch Linux in general is better than frugalware. In fact Frugalware does not even compare to arch linux in terms of support/documentation/community.

EAD · 2006-07-03 21:15:04

I can't get it, why does PACMAN don't have all these new cool things?
If others Distros can have it, why can't we?
It is a n open source, why not using this power for ourself?
I like to thing that the best thing about ARCH is bleeding edge and KISS, Does this mean that it isn't true any more? :?

krix · 2006-07-03 21:21:20

kensai wrote:

Don't get me wrong their pacman is better as I said but our pacman is usable and Arch Linux in general is better than frugalware. In fact Frugalware does not even compare to arch linux in terms of support/documentation/community.

Hmm. Maybe we got a smaller community yes i agree this. But i don't agree that we did not support our users or we did not got well documented. :S

And ofcourse we got a good pacman. As you said arch's pacman is usable. Why our pacman isn't usable? We are using it without any problems. And no we are not a 10 user community based distribution.

I don't see this point that arch's pacman is usable. pacman3 which is in frugalware is usable too like arch's pacman.

This is non-sense.

I don't want to compare arch and frugal like you dont want too. I just said my opinion about ""frugalware's pacman3"" because there was some information which was wrong or not completed.

And as i said pacman developers are working together! Nevermind that we are developing frugalware linux or arch linux. We contribute code base we intgerate to arch-cvs and vica-versa. We are not enemies.

Regards

Christian Hamar alias krix
Hungary
Frugalware Development Team.

kensai · 2006-07-03 21:59:32

You got me wrong also I mean that Arch pacman is just that usable at the moment and frugalware pacman is good because of the advancement. I was using frugalware for sometime when it started at 0.1 and I helped vmiklos to upgrade some GNOME packages.

krix · 2006-07-03 22:05:57

kensai wrote:

You got me wrong also I mean that Arch pacman is just that usable at the moment and frugalware pacman is good because of the advancement. I was using frugalware for sometime when it started at 0.1 and I helped vmiklos to upgrade some GNOME packages.

Sorry then was my mistake

Regards

-krix-

ScriptDevil · 2006-07-05 07:01:44

Dear RohanDhruv,
i can understand u have not understood the pacman renaming crisis. Listen if frugalware calls their release as pacman, we have a prob when we make a pacman3 , ehat do we name it. two versions of pacman with the same version name different features... hell on the loose!. Like DragonFly BSD isnt envied by freebsd but the name was changed to prevent conflicts.

cactus · 2006-07-05 15:33:34

ScriptDevil wrote:

hell on the loose!

Best quote of the day! That is going in my sig.

deficite · 2006-07-05 21:40:10

/jealous

I personally think that Frugal has done what they need to do in order to develop their version of pacman and not consider it a fork. I agree that it will pretty bad if we release a pacman3 with the same version number and different features. What needs to happen right now is a lot of sharing and communication. If one of us has to change names, I'd prefer frugal to change their pacman's name because even though they've done all the things they need to do correctly, they still aren't the official developers of pacman and having two separate versions of the same thing with the same version numbers would be crazy. I haven't looked into frugal's pacman at all, but from a completely unbiased point of view I'd say if frugal's pacman is more refined and "better" we should switch over and then incorporate them as official developers of pacman.

All this seems weird to me being in the OSS world.

krix · 2006-07-05 22:02:49

deficite wrote:

/jealous
I personally think that Frugal has done what they need to do in order to develop their version of pacman and not consider it a fork. I agree that it will pretty bad if we release a pacman3 with the same version number and different features. What needs to happen right now is a lot of sharing and communication. If one of us has to change names, I'd prefer frugal to change their pacman's name because even though they've done all the things they need to do correctly, they still aren't the official developers of pacman and having two separate versions of the same thing with the same version numbers would be crazy. I haven't looked into frugal's pacman at all, but from a completely unbiased point of view I'd say if frugal's pacman is more refined and "better" we should switch over and then incorporate them as official developers of pacman.
All this seems weird to me being in the OSS world.

We would like to help in pacman3 development as we already did it. Actually pacman "official" development gone tooo slow. We can not solve this part. We doing our work as we can. We implementing features and much more to pacman3. Which is arch linux version just extended.

The versioning scheme. I don't think it is a big problem. We got a 3.2.2 version of pacman, because we call it 3.2.2. Afterall many of 3.2.2 features already in archlinux CVS.

As i see Judd and other pacman devs has not got enough time to develop pacman well. I dont blame them or anything else for this. Dont misunderstand me.

I just say that if "official" development of pacman will be back then i think ALL of our improvements and features will be included in archlinux version pacman3. So i don't see any reason for changing frugalware's pacman's name.

As i said the version number is nothing in here. Just a stupid example like in distribution packages. You got a package-0.1.1-3 version in one distribution and in other you got a package-0.1.1-432 . So what changed? Maybe there are more patch or anything else in release -432 in that distro and less in -3 relese...

We DO NOT WANT to fork pacman. THis is not our goal. If this will be our goal then we did that in the past...

btw archlinux does not use pacman3 at this moment, so at this moment there is no problem which version we call in frugalware pacmans..

If archlinux will be use pacman3 code then we will talk with "official" developers of pacman3 and we will talk what to do now. Maybe the solve is that pacman3 will be come out with 3.2.2 version ...

Regards

Christian Hamar alias krix
Hungary
Frugalware Development Team

Arch Linux

#26 2006-07-03 18:16:15

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#27 2006-07-03 18:26:06

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#28 2006-07-03 18:40:36

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#29 2006-07-03 19:03:22

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#30 2006-07-03 19:07:47

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#31 2006-07-03 19:32:57

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#32 2006-07-03 20:01:31

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#33 2006-07-03 21:05:50

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#34 2006-07-03 21:15:04

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#35 2006-07-03 21:21:20

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#36 2006-07-03 21:59:32

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#37 2006-07-03 22:05:57

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#38 2006-07-05 07:01:44

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#39 2006-07-05 15:33:34

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#40 2006-07-05 21:40:10

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

#41 2006-07-05 22:02:49

Re: Pacman 3.3.2? You're kidding...

Board footer