[arch-dev-public] Pacman Architecture option (was: [signoff] pacman 3.4.0-2)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:21:32 +0200, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 22.06.2010 15:31, schrieb Allan McRae:
"Architecture = auto" causes issues on any system where the kernel is not built for the same architecture as the packages (waves hand as someone who cannot use it...). "Architecture = none" causes no restrictions on the system setup so is the default.
'Architecture = auto' is the common case, so it should be the default (and actually, the default configuration file contains it). 'Architecture = none' is a rare corner case that virtually nobody will need, so it should not be the default. Just my 2 cents on sane default values.
I agree with Thomas here; the common case should be the default; not the rare corner case. At least on Arch you don't have mixed architectures anyway.
This is the last thing I will say on this. Where the heck were you guys 11 months ago? Surely not following development, but you want to piss about it now. Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008965.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008968.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008970.html Patches (with no feedback, mind you): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009193.html Yes, Aaron did seem to lean your direction, but nothing persuasive enough to convince either me (who proposed the idea) or Xavier (who coded the idea) change our minds. It's put up or shut up, so to speak. I'm not saying you guys need to be turning out a patch a week to be able to offer opinions, but the statue of limitations on complaints is surely shorter than 11 months. Please don't see this as a personal blow to either of you guys- you both do a lot of great work around here. It just sucks to see 6 or so emails bitching about a feature (not even a bug!) that has been set for as long as this one has. -Dan
Am 22.06.2010 17:42, schrieb Dan McGee:
This is the last thing I will say on this. Where the heck were you guys 11 months ago? Surely not following development, but you want to piss about it now.
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008965.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008968.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008970.html
Patches (with no feedback, mind you): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009193.html
I do read pacman-dev on occasion, but not regularly, and I don't follow each patch thread or new feature. I heard that the Architecture option was coming, but was never too concerned with the details (just random happiness about it) - I didn't even know it would be an option, but thought it was just default behaviour. I even discussed the issue with Xavier I think, maybe it was Allan, it's too long ago. If you read my emails, you will see that I did not complain a single time, but rather wanted to know what the reasoning behind this decision was (which I'd still like to know btw). And while I think that this should be changed to the way I suggested (which would be a trivial change), for the reasons I posted, I can live with it either way.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 22.06.2010 17:42, schrieb Dan McGee:
This is the last thing I will say on this. Where the heck were you guys 11 months ago? Surely not following development, but you want to piss about it now.
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008965.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008968.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008970.html
Patches (with no feedback, mind you): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009193.html
I do read pacman-dev on occasion, but not regularly, and I don't follow each patch thread or new feature. I heard that the Architecture option was coming, but was never too concerned with the details (just random happiness about it) - I didn't even know it would be an option, but thought it was just default behaviour. I even discussed the issue with Xavier I think, maybe it was Allan, it's too long ago.
If you read my emails, you will see that I did not complain a single time, but rather wanted to know what the reasoning behind this decision was (which I'd still like to know btw).
OK, I lied about no more replies becuase I did forget to put this in my original email- the primary driving reason from my point of view is "If you do nothing, nothing changes". e.g. for anyone not adding this to their pacman.conf, they won't have to worry about this feature getting in the way. With that said, I do realize this would not inhibet most people to be turned on by default, but I think we saw this as a precautionary measure rather than something we should force on people. I've CC-ed to pacman-dev; if I end up being in the minority on this then I'll take a patch to make the default be "auto" (and we will then need to add an explicit "none" option and document it).
And while I think that this should be changed to the way I suggested (which would be a trivial change), for the reasons I posted, I can live with it either way.
On 23/06/10 02:06, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Bächler<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 22.06.2010 17:42, schrieb Dan McGee:
This is the last thing I will say on this. Where the heck were you guys 11 months ago? Surely not following development, but you want to piss about it now.
Discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008965.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008968.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008970.html
Patches (with no feedback, mind you): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009193.html
I do read pacman-dev on occasion, but not regularly, and I don't follow each patch thread or new feature. I heard that the Architecture option was coming, but was never too concerned with the details (just random happiness about it) - I didn't even know it would be an option, but thought it was just default behaviour. I even discussed the issue with Xavier I think, maybe it was Allan, it's too long ago.
If you read my emails, you will see that I did not complain a single time, but rather wanted to know what the reasoning behind this decision was (which I'd still like to know btw).
OK, I lied about no more replies becuase I did forget to put this in my original email- the primary driving reason from my point of view is "If you do nothing, nothing changes". e.g. for anyone not adding this to their pacman.conf, they won't have to worry about this feature getting in the way.
With that said, I do realize this would not inhibet most people to be turned on by default, but I think we saw this as a precautionary measure rather than something we should force on people. I've CC-ed to pacman-dev; if I end up being in the minority on this then I'll take a patch to make the default be "auto" (and we will then need to add an explicit "none" option and document it).
That will not be happening in the 3.4.x timeframe anyway and there will be plenty of time before 3.5 to hear how this feature is used by people. Allan
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee
-
Thomas Bächler