[arch-dev-public] The Arch-ization of packages
Hi! This is the latest report on the topic I like to discuss: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8384\ Other similar reports can be found on flyspray (I gave few links in comments to that report already) and forums. I honestly don't care much of having custom Arch-style splash screens, wallpapers, themes, OS identification in browsers etc. in our packages. I just want it to be *consistent*. There are few possibilities: 1) do not add customize packages to wear Arch name on them (as in Gnome packages now) 2) provide splashs/wallpapers/themes/etc. in packages but do not enable them by default (as in Xfce packages now) 3) provide splashs/wallpapers/themes/etc. in packages and hardcode or enable them by default (as in KDE packages and OOo now). Note that we already force arch-menus installed on every of those DEs. Also should decide if we want to patch Firefox, Seamonkey, Epiphany, Konqueror, Dillo (is it possible to patch Opera's default config files too?). Thoughts? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer? If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff. Andy
Am Samstag, 3. November 2007 schrieb Andreas Radke:
Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?
If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.
Andy
_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens nowhere else. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
* On Saturday, November 03 2007, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens nowhere else.
greetings tpowa
I agree with tpowa here, I think the arch branding should be kept. I think it does a lot for our own PR. If users don't like it, they can complain and we'll change it back. As far as suggested standardization of it, I think that is a good idea as well. It gives a unified look. But I don't think it's something we should push up to the front of the todo list though... there are many things more important than it. // jeff -- .: [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] :.
On Sun, November 4, 2007 04:48, Jeff 'codemac' Mickey wrote:
* On Saturday, November 03 2007, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens nowhere else.
greetings tpowa
I agree with tpowa here, I think the arch branding should be kept. I think it does a lot for our own PR. If users don't like it, they can complain and we'll change it back.
As far as suggested standardization of it, I think that is a good idea as well. It gives a unified look. But I don't think it's something we should push up to the front of the todo list though... there are many things more important than it.
I'll agree on the consistency... and if we're going to customise it, at least make it look professional. For example, I really dislike the current KDE splash, it looks pretty average. For at least one or two releases after 'Wombat' it still included the wombat outline. Or in XFCE... the Arch Linux window border really looks tacky. I don't think it's default any more though, fortunately. That's what we don't want. I'd prefer to have default, but if we do customise anything, make it consistent, professional and easy to remove. Take a look at the screenshot thread on the forums. Nobody keeps the defaults (or at least among those who post there) . So, do we really need to have them? James
Saturday 03 November 2007, Tobias Powalowski wrote: | Am Samstag, 3. November 2007 schrieb Andreas Radke: | > Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to | > the maintainer? | > | > If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure | > upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. | > Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme | > over the default one or to show what additional package will | > provide the related Arch stuff. | > | > Andy | > | > _______________________________________________ | > arch-dev-public mailing list | > arch-dev-public@archlinux.org | > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public | | Im against the non archifying, on screenshots you only see the | distro that runs because of the wallpaper or splash screens | nowhere else. i tend to agree here. leaving everywhere our fingerprints is a good thing. from the pr-psychological reason, i would brand anything that is 1) easy to brand (up to the maintainer of the piece if it is easy enough or not) 2) not forbidden to be branded/changed by upstream rules 3) makes it look decent (starting opengl fireworks with the arch-logo displayed when you launch an kde editor for example is overdoing it) 4) do not associates us with something we are not associated with - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?
If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.
I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix. -S
I actually think we should't do any branding. It annoys me when other distributions have their name all over everything, and make non standard distro specific options set. I think having an 'arch artwork' package that includes arch backgrounds and arch-color-themes is a good idea though. gnome-arch-artwork kde-arch-artwork stuff like that. An added benefit to doing that, is that if the artwork doesn't change, there is no need to pull in extra data along with the gnome specific apps, etc. Just my thoughts though. I would hate to see arch get overly 'brand happy' all of a sudden.
On 11/3/07, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?
If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.
I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix.
I think what we need to do is be consistent. So yes, we need 'rules' - maybe 'guidelines' is a better word. Personally, and I don't know how possible this is, I'd love to see branding, but SEPARATE branding, if that is possible. As far as a guideline goes, I don't seen anyone with a huge problem with it. Eliott mentioned it being annoying, and I agree - branding can be intrusive. But at the same time, it shows a little "Arch Pride" as it were. So here's what I propose for a guideline: Branding is a good thing, but whenever possible try to make it a separate package. If that's not possible, then try to make the branding as unobtrusive as possible.
2007/11/4, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 11/3/07, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the maintainer?
If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.
I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix.
I think what we need to do is be consistent. So yes, we need 'rules' - maybe 'guidelines' is a better word.
Personally, and I don't know how possible this is, I'd love to see branding, but SEPARATE branding, if that is possible.
As far as a guideline goes, I don't seen anyone with a huge problem with it. Eliott mentioned it being annoying, and I agree - branding can be intrusive. But at the same time, it shows a little "Arch Pride" as it were.
So here's what I propose for a guideline: Branding is a good thing, but whenever possible try to make it a separate package. If that's not possible, then try to make the branding as unobtrusive as possible.
Here I summarized some ideas from this thread: * Brand anything that is 1) easy to brand (up to the _maintainer_ of the piece if it is easy enough or not) 2) not forbidden to be branded/changed by upstream rules 3) makes it look decent (starting opengl fireworks with the arch-logo displayed when you launch an kde editor for example is overdoing it) 4) do not associates us with something we are not associated with Don't get confused by "anything" - of course putting arch logo on every splash screen in _every_ application is overkill. :-) * Put all branding in separate and _optional_ {gnome,kde,xfce,etc}-arch-artwork packages where possible. I know that for some packages it is not possible to separate, so branding should be unobtrusive. (I guess changing browser's UA string is unobtrusive) Note that with this ("optional") logic arch-menus should not be _required_ by KDE/Gnome/Xfce as well (IMO). Are above ideas OK for us to agree on them? I'd like to hear if our KDE/Gnome/Xfce maintainers have the same opinion. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
The way I see it is rather simple. It's nice to have an automated way to brag about which distro you're running. But in the end that doesn't help anyone, not really. Distrowatch may bump us to first place but does that change what arch is? It'll just create stress on the developers and people in the community as it may happen to us, like it does to Debian or Gentoo channels. You're worried about people not reading the docs now already? In my point of view it all sums up to about this: If the packages I have work for me, it's all I want. Putting extra complexity into packages just for the sake of adding yet another distro specific splashscreen for me is just a hassle, out of which I don't see any advantage but personal enjoyment when bragging. Cheers, -G
participants (10)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alexander Baldeck
-
Andreas Radke
-
Damir Perisa
-
eliott
-
James Rayner
-
Jeff 'codemac' Mickey
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Simo Leone
-
Tobias Powalowski