Repo reorganization

Ryujin · 2007-07-10 23:08:11

I might be stepping out of bounds here, but I was so excited to see this in the arch-dev-public mailing list that I just wanted to see what others thought, I think that Pierre is onto something and the current structure of the ArchLinux repos could use an overhaul to reflect the amazing progress of Arch. Here is a link to the post:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev … 01113.html

Cerebral · 2007-07-11 03:34:04

Heh - we've been discussing this for a while, tbh - most, if not all, devs agree that the repo structure and organization need to be addressed. That thread right there is the start of what we hope to be a few propositions, which will be scrutinized and voted upon.

I am actually kinda interested to know what the community thinks as well, though.

jb · 2007-07-11 04:53:57

It's definitely a good start.

But one question: Where would a free program go if it had a non-free make dependency?.. the only thing I could think of right now is maybe a free program required a non-free compiler/interpreter. It'd seem a little odd to find BSD/LGPL/MIT/etc licensed packages in a repo called Non-Free, but that'd probably be the best place to put them. They'd be rare events, but it's best to account for them now.

Ryujin · 2007-07-11 05:20:35

To be honest the repositories have always confused me, and the non-free section would make re-deploying Arch in the US much easier, the research I have been conducting shows a great deal of promise for Arch in the desktop and workplace, and better organized repos and dvd snapshots (hopefully with a web snapshot as well) are things I am glad I won't have to do on my own!
I like Pierre's system and have been chewing on it, I might post some ideas.

That non-free repo will be a mess too, many depends will need to be adressed, like codecs and amarok, and a "non-free" meta-package would be nice. (although I am all for it!)

Last edited by Ryujin (2007-07-11 05:21:27)

Roberth · 2007-07-11 14:37:32

This isnt debian, The packages that are in current is packages which is a part of the base system, and does packages that needs to have a trip in testing(exept gnome kde etc.)

Ryujin · 2007-07-11 15:01:01

The repo reorganization can help us do things that debian can't, non-free inclusion has always been a selling point for Arch. Arch's include what can be included policy about packages that includes packages like jdk, codecs, libdvdcss, netbeans and others in main repos sets Arch apart. Personally though, I think that a non-free repo would help Arch's deployment in more enterprise solutions. In my experience maintaining an enterprise server with Arch is easier than maintaining one with Red Hat / Debian style systems.

The repo separation is, in my mind something to better allow the enterprise deployment of Arch, finding ways to get the world's best distro into the enterprise race is one of the best things we can do!

ArchPad · 2007-07-11 16:59:31

This is only slightly related, but here's a change that would be very nice: I think that we should have a "master" mirrors file that will act as the mirror rank for all pacman.d/ mirrors files if you choose. By default, it wouldn't be enabled.

Ryujin · 2007-07-11 19:26:02

I agree, I am really sick of having to edit 5 config files to do one thing.

hussam · 2007-07-11 20:38:21

I'm not exactly sure splitting things into too many repositories is good.
We should have only 3 repositories
1. Core ( which is the 'base' part of what 'current' ).
2. Extra ( everything else but only opensource stuff).
3. non-free (non open source stuff + stuff that depend on non opensource stuff). Stuff with illegal licenses like the win32 codecs should go to this repository as well.

For packages like Xine-lib, we should have to packages, xine-lib ( built with win32 codecs and real codecs disabled) and xine-lib-nonfree ( built with win32codecs support )

And another note, xine-lib can play anything like .wma and .wmv without the win32 codecs. win32 codecs only addds real media support.

Splitting things into more than 3 official repositories is a bit confusing especially since there is also community, testing and unstable.

Last edited by hussam (2007-07-11 20:39:40)

Roberth · 2007-07-11 21:45:22

Argh this isnt debian (cryin) no packages should be splitted up at all....

Lone_Wolf · 2007-07-11 22:49:26

Adding a non-free repo would mean putting packages like nvidia, ati, acrobat reader in it.

IMO a new field in PKGBUILD would be simpler.

Such a field could be called "License Type" and have these choices :
OSI - Open Source Licenses as according to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Free - Non-osi but free to use for non-commercial purpose (f.e. nvidia,ati, acrobat reader, jre )
Other - anything else

add an option in pacman to list these types when searching/installing.

Every arch user can then decide for THEMSELVES whether they want non-free packages or not.

Personal Opinion :
Freedom of choice and the KISS principle are the main reasons i use arch.
what i've read on the dev-public ML and in this thread makes me wonder if i should get an extra hdd to test some OTHER DISTROS.
(no room left on my current systems)

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2007-07-11 22:50:52)

Cerebral · 2007-07-12 01:07:55

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Personal Opinion :
Freedom of choice and the KISS principle are the main reasons i use arch.
what i've read on the dev-public ML and in this thread makes me wonder if i should get an extra hdd to test some OTHER DISTROS.
(no room left on my current systems)

How does moving non-free apps to a non-free repo remove your freedom of choice? Anyone could just enable this repo in their conf file (heck, might even be enabled by default after any reorganization is done) and there you go.

tardo · 2007-07-12 01:40:07

Personally, I see nothing wrong with current/extra/community/testing/unstable. I just think some packages need to be moved/reorganized from one repo to another. Adding or changing the repos will just become a hassle.

Ryujin · 2007-07-12 01:42:07

A non-free repo greatly increases your choice, as Arch is now it is virtually impossible to set up a system that is "legal" (stupid Orrin Hatch and the Millennium copyright act) in the US. It also allows people who want to run GNU to use Arch, or at least those of us who want to work towards a GNU system can.

A non-free repo will also bring Arch to a more prominent place in the distro running by actually taking a position on non-free software, Arch's system competes with the big boys and is starting to really come of age, the move to reorganize the repos is a masterful move.

Oh, and I would say it should be enabled by default, otherwise it could be taking away.

Last edited by Ryujin (2007-07-12 01:45:14)

tardo · 2007-07-12 03:27:34

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing your logic. I don't want or care if Arch becomes mainstream. I don't need another Ubuntu/Suse/Mandriva. Arch allows you to learn about the underlying system while building it. If you can't learn about it, Arch shouldn't be for you. That being said, if you can put together a system running Arch, I fail to see how you cannot look up licenses for packages. Almost all packages in current/extra are GPL/LGPL or something to that effect, save some non-free stuff like driver binaries, flash, java, etc.

as Arch is now it is virtually impossible to set up a system that is "legal"

If this means setting up a system with just GPL/OSS, then I just accomplished that in under 30 minutes inside vmware.

It also allows people who want to run GNU to use Arch, or at least those of us who want to work towards a GNU system can

Once again, Arch lays the framework for a great linux system. If you can't put in the effort to build it, then you're just not trying.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just think it's a silly idea to change the repos. The current structure is rather simple to understand. Important stuff in current, goodies in extra, everything else in community/aur.

cactus · 2007-07-12 03:33:30

I agree with tardo. This seems like tilting at windmills to me.
The whole point of the repo reorg was to *Reduce Complexity* not increase it.

hacosta · 2007-07-12 04:29:31

how about just having core (not X dependent, similar to base _really_ needed to have a system running), extra (whatever's not in core), testing, unstable, and forget about the nonfree repo that's why we now have a license field

**Not that i have a problem if developers want to add a non_free repo, i would just enable it anyway, im just trying to make a point, creating a non_free repo, will lead to more work (splitting packages, categorizing, and what not) that can be better spent in other areas.

Last edited by hacosta (2007-07-12 04:33:32)

dolby · 2007-07-12 07:42:08

fictional scenario: a package thats in extra , has a dependency in the "non-free" repo but the user doesnt have it enabled. afaik pacman will never install that package cause unsatisfied dependencies, and theres no option to leave that dependency out cause the repo is not enabled. unless were talking about tagging packages as packagex-nonfree packagex-free etc.
tbph i would like having the choice but if this gonna complex things that much id rather they stay the way there are now.

Flying Saxman · 2007-07-12 07:47:01

I got another idea for the installer: As the new X11 does not need a xorg.conf anymore (if I understand it correctly), it would be possible to add /etc/inittab to the configuration-files and to install a DE/WM directly from beginning. So you can directly start with a nice GUI. In my eyes this is not against "the arch way", as the installation and configuration is GUI-driven through this. You still have to set up the inittab yourself, so you know, why e.g XDM or KDM or GDM etc. p.p. is starting. You understand what I mean?

brain0 · 2007-07-12 08:04:39

tardo wrote:

Personally, I see nothing wrong with current/extra/community/testing/unstable. I just think some packages need to be moved/reorganized from one repo to another.

What is the difference between current and extra? How do you define which package belongs to current and which belongs to extra? To be honest, it doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody wants to touch the community, testing or unstable repository though, it is very clear what they are.

tardo · 2007-07-12 09:05:34

brain0 wrote:

What is the difference between current and extra? How do you define which package belongs to current and which belongs to extra? To be honest, it doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody wants to touch the community, testing or unstable repository though, it is very clear what they are.

The way I'd like to see it is simply, core packages stay in current (maybe better to rename this base or core), everything needed to get the system running with the exception of WM/DEs. Basically everything on the base iso. Extra has apps like DE/WMs, basic libs and apps, etc, that devs *want* to maintain. Everything else goes in AUR/community.

Now that I actually think about it, having current/extra as two different repos is kinda pointless...

Lone_Wolf · 2007-07-12 09:06:09

After re-reading my post (made just before i went to bed at 1 am my time) i see i dind't make my thoughts clear.

I agree current & extra need an overhaul and it should be clear why package X is in repo A and not in repo B.

Problems with a non-free repo :

there are packages that are freely distributable, but not considered free by many
people. (My best example is intel wireless firmware. We can distribute
it on CD and FTP, but it should be in your support repository.)

see http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev … 01128.html

A similar problem occurs with nvidia, ati, acrobat reader, flash .

From reading the dev-public ML and this thread i got the impression arch may be moving towards a debian-style approach where there is a big difference between free and non-free.
I also remember how suse treats nvidia : you can only install it AFTER your system is up and you need to confirm explicitly you accept the license.

The arch way where it can be installed without needing any special action, but instead informs you through the install script that it's proprietary and you need to accept the license, is a lot better.

IF the devs decide that a non-free repo is the way to go, i feel it should be enabled by default, as there will be much useful stuff in it that can't be replaced with free apps of the same quality.

NOTE :
I am for open source, but it needs to be on par with proprietary solutions.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2007-07-12 09:07:14)

Cerebral · 2007-07-12 11:30:07

Lone_Wolf wrote:

From reading the dev-public ML and this thread i got the impression arch may be moving towards a debian-style approach where there is a big difference between free and non-free.

I would like to reiterate that these are currently only proposals for a repo reorg - Arch isn't moving in any direction yet; we're talking about what direction we want our repos to move in.

ArchPad · 2007-07-12 14:18:09

The current repos organization works just fine. Very intuitive, as opposed to the weird layout Ubuntu's hawking these days: Multiverse, Universe?

shining · 2007-07-12 14:27:11

ArchPad wrote:

The current repos organization works just fine. Very intuitive, as opposed to the weird layout Ubuntu's hawking these days: Multiverse, Universe?

I don't see how arch layout is more intuitive :
1) the distinction between current and extra isn't intuitive at all, nor is the "current" name, and that's something all developers seem to agree on
(I've no problems with this though, since it doesn't affect me as an user )
2) the testing / unstable repos aren't intuitive at all either, by my definition of intuitive.
But since they are clearly defined, once you read about what they mean and understand their role, then it's alright.

So I agree with the "works just fine" part, but definitively not the "very intuitive" one.
But even if it works fine from my pov, it doesn't mean it couldn't be improved.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-07-10 23:08:11

Repo reorganization

#2 2007-07-11 03:34:04

Re: Repo reorganization

#3 2007-07-11 04:53:57

Re: Repo reorganization

#4 2007-07-11 05:20:35

Re: Repo reorganization

#5 2007-07-11 14:37:32

Re: Repo reorganization

#6 2007-07-11 15:01:01

Re: Repo reorganization

#7 2007-07-11 16:59:31

Re: Repo reorganization

#8 2007-07-11 19:26:02

Re: Repo reorganization

#9 2007-07-11 20:38:21

Re: Repo reorganization

#10 2007-07-11 21:45:22

Re: Repo reorganization

#11 2007-07-11 22:49:26

Re: Repo reorganization

#12 2007-07-12 01:07:55

Re: Repo reorganization

#13 2007-07-12 01:40:07

Re: Repo reorganization

#14 2007-07-12 01:42:07

Re: Repo reorganization

#15 2007-07-12 03:27:34

Re: Repo reorganization

#16 2007-07-12 03:33:30

Re: Repo reorganization

#17 2007-07-12 04:29:31

Re: Repo reorganization

#18 2007-07-12 07:42:08

Re: Repo reorganization

#19 2007-07-12 07:47:01

Re: Repo reorganization

#20 2007-07-12 08:04:39

Re: Repo reorganization

#21 2007-07-12 09:05:34

Re: Repo reorganization

#22 2007-07-12 09:06:09

Re: Repo reorganization

#23 2007-07-12 11:30:07

Re: Repo reorganization

#24 2007-07-12 14:18:09

Re: Repo reorganization

#25 2007-07-12 14:27:11

Re: Repo reorganization

Board footer