I had this thought during the above discussion about compat-wireless: Do we really need unstable? Almost nobody uses it and let's see which packages are in there:
opera-devel firefox3 kernel26mm fvwm-devel gimp-devel reiser4progs + dependencies. openoffice-devel mplayer-svn
Most of the rest is so out of date and old that it should be dropped anyway (including the external modules for kernel26mm). The packages that are actually being maintained can IMO be moved to extra. Everybody who installs a -svn or -devel package probably knows it is unstable (firefox3 should be renamed to firefox-devel then).
So I'm asking you: What is the point of having a repository with <30 packages, half of which are neither used nor maintained? Except maybe confusion among users (wait? enable unstable? isn't that dangerous?).
Am Sonntag, 20. April 2008 14:14:23 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Do we really need unstable?
I have never used it.
Hi,
two remarks: - gimp-devel: 2.5.x gains speed these days but I think it is better done in AUR - fvwm-devel: the actually popular 2.5.x series of fvwm is what people are using. fvwm 2.4 is more of a legacy and I think we should maintain 2.5.x in the official repos. I have the suspicion that actually 2.5.x is the only one that is maintained upstream. Oh and 2.5 is "unstable" since I started using Arch; roughly 5 years I'd say. for the other packages, toss them.
-T
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Tobias Kieslich wrote:
Hi,
two remarks:
- gimp-devel: 2.5.x gains speed these days but I think it is better done in AUR
gimp(-devel) takes time to compile even on my fast machine. For that reason, it should remain in a repo. I'm willing to continue maintain it (unless someone else is more interested). The devel 2.5 branch was released a few days ago so the gimp-devel package will switch to that instead of following the stable branch like it did since 2.4 is out..
- fvwm-devel: the actually popular 2.5.x series of fvwm is what people are using. fvwm 2.4 is more of a legacy and I think we should maintain 2.5.x in the official repos. I have the suspicion that actually 2.5.x is the only one that is maintained upstream. Oh and 2.5 is "unstable" since I started using Arch; roughly 5 years I'd say.
fvwm 2.4 is still active. Latest release was last December. Developement is slow on both branches. I've been using fvwm-devel for years and it's rock stable. I believe most fvwm users use the devel version. Possibly we could update the fvwm package to the 2.5 branch. A similar thing was done for fluxbox a couple of years ago.
Am Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:14:23 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org:
I had this thought during the above discussion about compat-wireless: Do we really need unstable? Almost nobody uses it and let's see which packages are in there:
opera-devel firefox3 kernel26mm fvwm-devel gimp-devel reiser4progs + dependencies. openoffice-devel mplayer-svn
Most of the rest is so out of date and old that it should be dropped anyway (including the external modules for kernel26mm). The packages that are actually being maintained can IMO be moved to extra. Everybody who installs a -svn or -devel package probably knows it is unstable (firefox3 should be renamed to firefox-devel then).
So I'm asking you: What is the point of having a repository with <30 packages, half of which are neither used nor maintained? Except maybe confusion among users (wait? enable unstable? isn't that dangerous?).
opera-devel - this is an exception only until there will be the first 64bit release. later devel releases could be maintained in AUR
openoffice-base-devel - i really doubt it would be a good idea to maintain it in AUR - compile time matters here - it should stay somewhere binary (maybe even in extra or permanently in testing) !
-Andy
2008/4/21 Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de:
Am Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:14:23 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org:
I had this thought during the above discussion about compat-wireless: Do we really need unstable? Almost nobody uses it and let's see which packages are in there:
opera-devel firefox3 kernel26mm fvwm-devel gimp-devel reiser4progs + dependencies. openoffice-devel mplayer-svn
Most of the rest is so out of date and old that it should be dropped anyway (including the external modules for kernel26mm). The packages that are actually being maintained can IMO be moved to extra. Everybody who installs a -svn or -devel package probably knows it is unstable (firefox3 should be renamed to firefox-devel then).
So I'm asking you: What is the point of having a repository with <30 packages, half of which are neither used nor maintained? Except maybe confusion among users (wait? enable unstable? isn't that dangerous?).
opera-devel
- this is an exception only until there will be the first 64bit
release. later devel releases could be maintained in AUR
openoffice-base-devel
- i really doubt it would be a good idea to maintain it in AUR -
compile time matters here
- it should stay somewhere binary (maybe even in extra or
permanently in testing) !
Just a remark: AUR includes Community repo too which is binary and devs have access to it. +1 for moving Unstable packages to Extra/Community/Unsupported
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/21 Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de:
Am Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:14:23 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org:
I had this thought during the above discussion about compat-wireless: Do we really need unstable? Almost nobody uses it and let's see which packages are in there:
opera-devel firefox3 kernel26mm fvwm-devel gimp-devel reiser4progs + dependencies. openoffice-devel mplayer-svn
Most of the rest is so out of date and old that it should be dropped anyway (including the external modules for kernel26mm). The packages that are actually being maintained can IMO be moved to extra. Everybody who installs a -svn or -devel package probably knows it is unstable (firefox3 should be renamed to firefox-devel then).
So I'm asking you: What is the point of having a repository with <30 packages, half of which are neither used nor maintained? Except maybe confusion among users (wait? enable unstable? isn't that dangerous?).
opera-devel
- this is an exception only until there will be the first 64bit
release. later devel releases could be maintained in AUR
openoffice-base-devel
- i really doubt it would be a good idea to maintain it in AUR -
compile time matters here
- it should stay somewhere binary (maybe even in extra or
permanently in testing) !
Just a remark: AUR includes Community repo too which is binary and devs have access to it. +1 for moving Unstable packages to Extra/Community/Unsupported
If anyone would want to go through the trouble of deleting/moving packages in svn, I will gladly go and delete things on gerolde.
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
Just a remark: AUR includes Community repo too which is binary and devs have access to it. +1 for moving Unstable packages to Extra/Community/Unsupported
If anyone would want to go through the trouble of deleting/moving packages in svn, I will gladly go and delete things on gerolde.
Yes, I wanted to do it weeks ago already, I will get to it at some point.
Am Sat, 17 May 2008 21:38:47 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
Just a remark: AUR includes Community repo too which is binary and devs have access to it. +1 for moving Unstable packages to Extra/Community/Unsupported
If anyone would want to go through the trouble of deleting/moving packages in svn, I will gladly go and delete things on gerolde.
Yes, I wanted to do it weeks ago already, I will get to it at some point.
state?
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Sat, 17 May 2008 21:38:47 +0200 schrieb Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
Just a remark: AUR includes Community repo too which is binary and devs have access to it. +1 for moving Unstable packages to Extra/Community/Unsupported
If anyone would want to go through the trouble of deleting/moving packages in svn, I will gladly go and delete things on gerolde.
Yes, I wanted to do it weeks ago already, I will get to it at some point.
state?
$ find /home/ftp/unstable -name '*.pkg.tar.gz' | wc -l 35
Should I move all these to package-cleanup and remove them from the DB? or does anyone want to move anything to extra?
I can do all this cleanup, if someone will let me know - move quickly, I will do all the fun deletion tomorrow, and post some front-page news.
Am Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:59:25 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
state?
$ find /home/ftp/unstable -name '*.pkg.tar.gz' | wc -l 35
Should I move all these to package-cleanup and remove them from the DB? or does anyone want to move anything to extra?
I can do all this cleanup, if someone will let me know - move quickly, I will do all the fun deletion tomorrow, and post some front-page news.
openoffice-base-devel should go into extra. i'll keep maintaining it there.
-Andy
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:59:25PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
$ find /home/ftp/unstable -name '*.pkg.tar.gz' | wc -l 35
Should I move all these to package-cleanup and remove them from the DB? or does anyone want to move anything to extra?
I can do all this cleanup, if someone will let me know - move quickly, I will do all the fun deletion tomorrow, and post some front-page news.
Theres openoffice-devel that should probably be moved to extra. Also i remember that Eric wanted to keep on maintaining the fvwm stuff. Then its mostly Tom's packages. mm kernel is long out of date. And mplayer-svn that probably should be kept as reading the mplayer users ML reveals that the developers dont really intend to release a stable snapshot at least any time soon. Theres also the reiserfs4 packages.
Greg
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:59:25PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
$ find /home/ftp/unstable -name '*.pkg.tar.gz' | wc -l 35
Should I move all these to package-cleanup and remove them from the DB? or does anyone want to move anything to extra?
I can do all this cleanup, if someone will let me know - move quickly, I will do all the fun deletion tomorrow, and post some front-page news.
Theres openoffice-devel that should probably be moved to extra. Also i remember that Eric wanted to keep on maintaining the fvwm stuff. Then its mostly Tom's packages. mm kernel is long out of date. And mplayer-svn that probably should be kept as reading the mplayer users ML reveals that the developers dont really intend to release a stable snapshot at least any time soon. Theres also the reiserfs4 packages.
Greg
Yes, keep my fvwm-devel package. You can move it to extra. I also use gqview-devel so move it extra as well. I'll take it if Damir no longer wants it.
Damir has several packages in unstable. I don't know if he still wants them.
BTW, mplayer-svn is orphaned. Does anyone want to adopt it? If it's not actively maintained, then perhaps we might as well remove it completely.
Eric
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:08:52PM -0400, Eric Belanger wrote:
Yes, keep my fvwm-devel package. You can move it to extra. I also use gqview-devel so move it extra as well. I'll take it if Damir no longer wants it.
Damir has several packages in unstable. I don't know if he still wants them
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above abcm2ps-devel gqview-devel .
BTW, mplayer-svn is orphaned. Does anyone want to adopt it? If it's not actively maintained, then perhaps we might as well remove it completely.
Reiserfs4 :
libaal reiser4progs
are iphitu's
And that leaves us with
bitlbee-devel long out of date. was neotuli's. libflashsupport Roman's seom-svn brain0's
2008/7/9 Grigorios Bouzakis grbzks@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:08:52PM -0400, Eric Belanger wrote:
Yes, keep my fvwm-devel package. You can move it to extra. I also use gqview-devel so move it extra as well. I'll take it if Damir no longer wants it.
Damir has several packages in unstable. I don't know if he still wants them
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above abcm2ps-devel gqview-devel .
BTW, mplayer-svn is orphaned. Does anyone want to adopt it? If it's not actively maintained, then perhaps we might as well remove it completely.
Reiserfs4 :
libaal reiser4progs
are iphitu's
And that leaves us with
bitlbee-devel long out of date. was neotuli's. libflashsupport Roman's
Please move libflashsupport to Extra
seom-svn brain0's
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/7/9 Grigorios Bouzakis grbzks@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:08:52PM -0400, Eric Belanger wrote:
Yes, keep my fvwm-devel package. You can move it to extra. I also use gqview-devel so move it extra as well. I'll take it if Damir no longer wants it.
Damir has several packages in unstable. I don't know if he still wants them
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above abcm2ps-devel gqview-devel .
BTW, mplayer-svn is orphaned. Does anyone want to adopt it? If it's not actively maintained, then perhaps we might as well remove it completely.
Reiserfs4 :
libaal reiser4progs
are iphitu's
And that leaves us with
bitlbee-devel long out of date. was neotuli's. libflashsupport Roman's
Please move libflashsupport to Extra
It's in extra now. Don't forget to readopt.
Update
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above abcm2ps-devel last updated ---- Version 5.5.2 - 07/08/18 ----
Doubt Damir has time to maintain any of those.
Reiserfs4 :
libaal reiser4progs
are iphitu's
Iphitus hasnt replied yet. Is anyone else willing to maintain them?
The mm kernel and modules are long out date. TomK hasnt replied on this thread. Doubt he wants to keep maintaining them either. Any takers?
And theres also mplayer-svn.
Greg
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis grbzks@gmail.com wrote:
Update
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above
Removed these two from unstable
abcm2ps-devel last updated ---- Version 5.5.2 - 07/08/18 ----
Should I remove this one? Opinions?
The mm kernel and modules are long out date. TomK hasnt replied on this thread. Doubt he wants to keep maintaining them either. Any takers?
Removing the -mm kernel and modules now.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis grbzks@gmail.com wrote:
Update
Damir's packages are
vips-devel already newer version is in extra. nip2-devel as above
Removed these two from unstable
abcm2ps-devel last updated ---- Version 5.5.2 - 07/08/18 ----
Should I remove this one? Opinions?
The mm kernel and modules are long out date. TomK hasnt replied on this thread. Doubt he wants to keep maintaining them either. Any takers?
Removing the -mm kernel and modules now.
Ok, the three pending packages: libaal abcm2ps-devel reiser4progs
Any opinions on what to do with these?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
Any opinions on what to do with these?
Move to unsupported?
Just remove them and kill the repo. They are still in svn if needed.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Pierre Schmitz pierre@archlinux.de wrote:
Just remove them and kill the repo. They are still in svn if needed.
Good point, they're still in trunk.
Which reminds me. I should setup a cron-job to run once a month to just check all packages that aren't in any repo (note to self)
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Eric Belanger wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:59:25PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
$ find /home/ftp/unstable -name '*.pkg.tar.gz' | wc -l 35
Should I move all these to package-cleanup and remove them from the DB? or does anyone want to move anything to extra?
I can do all this cleanup, if someone will let me know - move quickly, I will do all the fun deletion tomorrow, and post some front-page news.
Theres openoffice-devel that should probably be moved to extra. Also i remember that Eric wanted to keep on maintaining the fvwm stuff. Then its mostly Tom's packages. mm kernel is long out of date. And mplayer-svn that probably should be kept as reading the mplayer users ML reveals that the developers dont really intend to release a stable snapshot at least any time soon. Theres also the reiserfs4 packages.
Greg
Yes, keep my fvwm-devel package. You can move it to extra. I also use gqview-devel so move it extra as well. I'll take it if Damir no longer wants it.
Damir has several packages in unstable. I don't know if he still wants them.
BTW, mplayer-svn is orphaned. Does anyone want to adopt it? If it's not actively maintained, then perhaps we might as well remove it completely.
Eric
I've grabbed fvwm-crystal so keep it in unstable. The db-move script doesn't work for it because the package name doesn't have the arch suffix. I'll update it and move it to extra myself.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
I had this thought during the above discussion about compat-wireless: Do we really need unstable? Almost nobody uses it and let's see which packages are in there:
opera-devel firefox3 kernel26mm fvwm-devel gimp-devel reiser4progs + dependencies. openoffice-devel mplayer-svn
Most of the rest is so out of date and old that it should be dropped anyway (including the external modules for kernel26mm). The packages that are actually being maintained can IMO be moved to extra. Everybody who installs a -svn or -devel package probably knows it is unstable (firefox3 should be renamed to firefox-devel then).
So I'm asking you: What is the point of having a repository with <30 packages, half of which are neither used nor maintained? Except maybe confusion among users (wait? enable unstable? isn't that dangerous?).
You forgot gqview-devel in your list. The package is up-to-date and it works fine. I've been using it for years as my main image viewer without any problems. I don't see why we wouldn't keep it.
I agree about removing the out-of-date and old packages unless a dev wants to actively maintain them.
I don't mind wether we keep the rest in the unstable repo or move them in extra. If we move them in extra, we could add "Developement version" at the end of the package description to inform the user.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Eric Belanger belanger@astro.umontreal.ca wrote:
I don't mind wether we keep the rest in the unstable repo or move them in extra. If we move them in extra, we could add "Developement version" at the end of the package description to inform the user.
I'm fine with this here, if you all want to do it. I've only ever used mplayer-svn once, and not for too long. /me shrugs
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Eric Belanger belanger@astro.umontreal.ca wrote:
I don't mind wether we keep the rest in the unstable repo or move them in extra. If we move them in extra, we could add "Developement version" at the end of the package description to inform the user.
I'm fine with this here, if you all want to do it. I've only ever used mplayer-svn once, and not for too long. /me shrugs
It seems Pierre is indifferent, Andy is fine with moving his -devel packages to extra and Eric and Tobias didn't really give an opinion.
It seems like everyone is indifferent :) As for me, I don't think using a separate repository for a handfull of -devel packages is necessary - for some of those packages, the name "unstable" would keep users from using them even if they're perfectly safe to use.
IMO, having "Development Version" in the description and a -devel in the pkgname is enough (we should rename firefox3 to firefox-devel).
If I am the only one with a strong opinion on this one, I will make the move next weekend or shortly after that, the unstable repository will be empty then.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Bächler thomas@archlinux.org wrote:
If I am the only one with a strong opinion on this one, I will make the move next weekend or shortly after that, the unstable repository will be empty then.
I'm on your side here. My opinion is just weaker: unstable has it's place, but if we're only using it for 10 packages, then we should probably kill it off.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Eric Belanger belanger@astro.umontreal.ca wrote:
I don't mind wether we keep the rest in the unstable repo or move them in extra. If we move them in extra, we could add "Developement version" at the end of the package description to inform the user.
I'm fine with this here, if you all want to do it. I've only ever used mplayer-svn once, and not for too long. /me shrugs
It seems Pierre is indifferent, Andy is fine with moving his -devel packages to extra and Eric and Tobias didn't really give an opinion.
Okay, ditch the repo and move the packages, some to AUR some to extra. I totally concur, *-devel should be anough headups for normal users.
-T
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Eric Belanger belanger@astro.umontreal.ca wrote:
I don't mind wether we keep the rest in the unstable repo or move them in extra. If we move them in extra, we could add "Developement version" at the end of the package description to inform the user.
I'm fine with this here, if you all want to do it. I've only ever used mplayer-svn once, and not for too long. /me shrugs
It seems Pierre is indifferent, Andy is fine with moving his -devel packages to extra and Eric and Tobias didn't really give an opinion.
It seems like everyone is indifferent :) As for me, I don't think using a separate repository for a handfull of -devel packages is necessary - for some of those packages, the name "unstable" would keep users from using them even if they're perfectly safe to use.
IMO, having "Development Version" in the description and a -devel in the pkgname is enough (we should rename firefox3 to firefox-devel).
If I am the only one with a strong opinion on this one, I will make the move next weekend or shortly after that, the unstable repository will be empty then.
If you want my opinion, +1 for moving the unstable packages to extra. If you plan to remove some of them completely, maybe it would be better to have their maintainers explicitely agreeing with the removal. Or, at the very least, post a list of potential removal candidates so they can be discussed.
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org