Arch Linux

wolfi

Member

From: Berlin

Registered: 2007-04-23

Posts: 24

Re: Repo reorganization

please don't go Debian Style with this non-free crap... its totally against KISS
imho just make current + extra to core and let the rest untouched

archuser

Member

From: Northamptonshire, UK

Registered: 2006-09-10

Posts: 122

Re: Repo reorganization

I think there should be these following repos:

Current - Contains all current software needed to have a running system like the system files, basic text editor, libraries.
Network - Contains networking tools.
Desktop - Contains all current versions desktop environments and their add-on software (amarok, rhythm player, etc).
Multi-Media - Contains all current multimedia applications that don't belong to a specific DE (mpd, mplayer, xmms, vlc, etc).
Development - Current development tools and libraries.
Non-Free - All current proprietary software.
Testing - The same as it is now.
Unstable - The same as it is now.

There may seem a lot but at least you know that you're not going to need to look in Current, Development, or Desktop to search for a DVD player for example.

please don't go Debian Style with this non-free crap... its totally against KISS
imho just make current + extra to core and let the rest untouched

I think that the KISS principle is maintained here as there is no need to use any more repos than the ones you need; therefore you don't see superfluous packages listed that you have to wade through.

Last edited by archuser (2007-07-12 17:12:57)

---

Intel i7-920 (stock), ASUS P6TD-Deluxe, AMD R9 270X, RAM: 6GB

Gilneas

Member

From: Netherlands

Registered: 2006-10-22

Posts: 320

Re: Repo reorganization

I'd rather see current, extra and community merged into one repository than to see 10 new ones.
I'd rather wade through packages than through repositories.

ArchPad

Member

Registered: 2007-03-26

Posts: 81

Re: Repo reorganization

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.

I agree. I think a setup like this would be fine:
* Main for the system's core
* Extra for packages outside the system's core

I haven't worked with testing and unstable, so I have no opinion on those.

lloeki

Member

From: France

Registered: 2007-02-20

Posts: 456

Website

Re: Repo reorganization

Wait. I want to make sense out of this and that.

Short story (for the ones that don't feel like reading my awkward prose):
- current->core + reorg. makes much sense
- 'non-free' (watever the name) repo is questionable
- 'non-free' name itself is questionable

Long story:

First, there seems to be some confusion about this 'non-free' repo, which I'd like cleared up:

I seem to get that its goal is to make CD/DVD release compliant with license terms.
Now two points:
1. nvidia is closed source, but absolutely compliant with things like the DMCA, yet has special distribution license terms.
2. libdvdcss is free software, but feared not to be compliant with the DMCA, hence potentially not releasable in the US at all.
The goal of the 'non-free' repo is to allow for a 100% legal distribution, so no software like points 1 and 2, but 'non-free software' relates to point 1 only... so, maybe this new repo has a purpose in that case, but I really don't feel like calling this new repo 'non-free' and encompass point 2.
Anyway, even if 'non-free' repo referred to point 1 only, it would be rather called 'non-repack' or 'non-redist' rather that 'non-free', because there's non-free software that's perfectly repackageable and redistributable, but just closed-source (this latter case could easily go in extra)
And if it refers to any closed source software (not only non-CD packageable ones), I feel this kind of debianism really doesn't fit in the arch philosophy, part of it being non-free software tolerant (else this repo would have been there from the start, and there would not be any free software depending on non-free).

In the end, I feel like this 'non-free' repo thing is awkward to say the least, and only doubles the current 'license' var in the PKGBUILD, and in the end it is vastly inferior in terms of flexibility, both when packaging a CD/DVD release (where a script would do the trick at checking that no incompatible license is present on it) and on day-to-day package management.
As for banning/accepting licenses in a certain environment (corporate or whatever), there should be a config file/dir in /etc where you would opt-in or opt-out e.g like this:

#opt-out example
+all
-nvidia

#opt-in example
-all
+nvidia

and on day-to-day, pacman would refuse to install non-accepted licenses.
For ease of use, at install time, the installer would ask if the default would be opt-in or opt-out (selecting opt-out would just give current behavior), and optionally ask for /etc/licenses.conf review (like it does for other config files) with a sample file containing all known licenses commented (like locale.gen). this is independent of the fact that non-redist files are present on the cd (they would not be there), it's just setup for later use.

Maybe I was not really clear right up above, or maybe it exists already, or it's planned, but it's just a two minute mockup pseudo-solution of what might be done instead of yet another repo.

Second, about the whole reorganization stuff:

- This 'core' thing is exactly like the BSD 'base' system. That is: 'base' category to actually run the OS (e.g tar, bash...)+required tools in the context of the distro (e.g csup, openssh...)
- 'extra' is everything else still managed by
- 'community', well, we know: handled by TUs.
- 'unstable': beta versions.
- 'testing': stable versions testbed befor inclusion into core/extra.
- one would supposedly want to add 'non-free' to that.

okay. now:
- core = superset of base category.
- current+extra = core+extra.
that makes sense but essentially, that's only (I mean conceptually, I'm not minimizing anyone's work here) reorganizing a bunch of packages (just like the recent cleanups) and renaming current. One would say 'Mostly harmless' (except the renaming part, which would supposedly require manual editing?)

Last edited by lloeki (2007-07-12 20:04:31)

---

To know recursion, you must first know recursion.

PJ

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2005-10-11

Posts: 602

Re: Repo reorganization

@lloeki
I totally agree with your opinion.

retsaw

Member

From: London, UK

Registered: 2005-03-22

Posts: 132

Re: Repo reorganization

Your talk of the license field in the package description as part of a solution caused me to check to see what was listed for some packages I had installed, they returned "None" for the license field, this led me to check how many other packages were like that and I found out of the 696 packages I have installed, 462 have no license field.

I do feel being able to specifically ban/allow certain licenses, as you suggest, would be a better way to go, it won't work unless we can rely on the license field to be correct and complete.

sm4tik

Member

From: Finland, Jyväskylä

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 248

Website

Re: Repo reorganization

I dug up this one rather than creating a new post.

I just wanted to say that the idea of a non-free repo deserves a +1 from here, but whether it is necessary or even truly a good idea for arch, that I can't tell. But the whole reason why I'm writing this now, is that I think it would be nice to have a some sort of a list of alternatives (if one exists) to those non-free apps and apps which use non-free stuff as their dependencies.
And why would this be good? Of course I can only speak of my own experiences, but the non-free apps and drivers I've tried have either caused a lot of headache or a lot of pity towards my computer. I must say I'm using computers literally from the last century and most of the closed source packages are meant to satisfy today's computers' users.
I'll take Adobe's Reader as an example here. It's big. It's big because it's the best. It's the best because it supports tons and tons of cool features.. but I can honestly say, I've never even filled a pdf form with my computer. I find it much nicer to fill 'em up with a pen. So what I really need is a PDF reader, not an ADOBE reader. And if one would've told me straight away there are a few good alternatives and they exist in the repos, it would've saved me from a lot of trouble finding epdfview which suits my needs and my computer's specs.
Now that would've Kept It Simple for me, the Stupid.
I understand that sometimes it's good or even necessary to have that Adobe Reader but in most cases, it would just make my machine red hot, not to forget myself
So, to a conclusion. If you're running arch or any other linux system on an older computer, you'll just be better off without those non-free packages anyway, so why waste pacman's precious time with that bloated list of apps

arnuld

Member

From: INDIA

Registered: 2005-12-19

Posts: 220

Website

Re: Repo reorganization

but the non-free apps and drivers I've tried have either caused a lot of headache or a lot of pity towards my computer.

RIGHT, that is my experience too and that is why I do not use them. xpdf and evince and much lighter than Acrobat. 2nd, I have 256 kbps conenction and Skype always disconnects 8 times an hour whereas with Ekiga I never had any trouble and If  i had some problem in sound-clarity then I can simply choose another audio codec according to the lower bandwidth I am getting sometimes. Ekiga never disconnected, not even once. auto-disconnection facility is available with Skype.

I understand that sometimes it's good or even necessary to have that Adobe Reader but in most cases, it would just make my machine red hot, not to forget myself

TBH, I never needed Acrobat because Evince satisfies my all needs.

So, to a conclusion. If you're running arch or any other linux system on an older computer, you'll just be better off without those non-free packages anyway, so why waste pacman's precious time with that bloated list of apps

quite right honey

---

http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/

z0phi3l

Member

From: Waterbury CT

Registered: 2007-11-26

Posts: 278

Re: Repo reorganization

From what I've been reading the current state of the repos is pretty much where it should be.

First off a Non Free repo is really a waste, we ALL know what is free and non-free, second it just adds to the work the Devs and TUs have to worry about.

It seems that a more strict adherence to the License would be the best option for the vast majority of users of Arch, be they regular every day users like me or a larger entity like a business.