You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I don't want to start discussion about the merits of groups v. metapackages etc., I'm just curious why do we have such a group.
xorg group consists of xorg-apps group, xorg-drivers group, xorg-fonts group and a few other packages. Do we need such a super-group?
Last edited by karol (2011-09-26 05:05:05)
Offline
There are cases where this can be useful. For instance, if one is developing an Arch based live distro, this group may come in handy.
Offline
Agreed. I installed the new image today and selected the X.org packaged assuming it would only install really what's needed to get X going, xorg-server xorg-xinit xorg-utils xorg-server-utils, stuff like that.
But it installed those, along with every single xf86 driver. You can imagine how this couldn't be a good thing for a regular user!
Could this have been an oversight? Since it installed every single driver, the first (and last thing, before re-installing Arch) I noticed is that X is not able to auto-produce a config file using X -configure due to driver conflicts
Big Linux Noob
Offline
The xorg group was created on purpose. The contents of this group changed as Arch evolved:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=60201
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=69192
Also https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=107487
Last edited by karol (2011-08-21 10:20:28)
Offline
I just install Xorg-server, xf86-video-ati and xf86-input-synaptics for miimal desktop
Acer Aspire V5-573P Antergos KDE
Offline
This group came in handy for me for the first time today. nVidia and xorg-server 1.11.0 don't play well together and 'IgnoreGroup = xorg' has stopped two upgrades so far. And, there may be quite a few more coming down the pipe. I blocked xorg-server-common manually until I can determine if it's unnecessary to do so. Another win for thoughtful design.
Offline
Why isn't xorg-server-common, xorg-server-utils, xorg-utils and xorg-xinit in the xorg group (or in any group for that matter)? Does this have something to do with how upstream handles things?
Isn't the ignoring possible w/o the xorg group by ignoring a set of packages or by using xorg-apps & xorg-drivers groups?
Last edited by karol (2011-08-31 01:24:56)
Offline
Why isn't xorg-server-common, xorg-server-utils, xorg-utils and xorg-xinit in the xorg group (or in any group for that matter)? Does this have something to do with how upstream handles things?
These are good questions, but I'm too lazy to think about it right now.
Isn't the ignoring possible w/o the xorg group by ignoring a set of packages or by using xorg-apps & xorg-drivers groups?
Probably, but I'm too lazy to think about that right now as well
Honestly, I haven't thought about groups in Arch for years. For that matter, I've only ignored things a few times in years. Generally I maintain my own stuff if there's a conflict with what I do and how stuff in the primary repos work. In this case, nVidia is thinking about it, my card is still supported in the current driver model, nouveau + gallium3d has much work to do, and everything will play nicely soon enough... Or not. We'll see.
Offline
Seems that kde is a similar super-group, with kdebase & friends as subgroups, so xorg is not unique in this regard.
I'm marking this thread as solved, thanks to all that joined the discussion.
Offline
Seems the existence of xorg group is mostly influenced by what upstream deems right https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26440
Offline
Pages: 1