On 5/18/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:50:37PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2007/5/18, Aaron Griffin :

...

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup

So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend. If anyone want to help out, that'd be great. In addition, please voice your opinions about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about this, so I've left it alone:

* Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?) Yes. (Not sure if xorg will belong to Core, so probably move xorg to extra too)

...

* Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO) depends on Core decission (which was done on DevMeeting, but no pkglist agreed yet)

...

* Rename current to "core" ? YESSSS!!! http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages

So we've actually defined what core packages are? I just want to make sure so we don't start fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.

I haven't heard input. I'm going to run with the "no news is good news" adage. The core thing won't happen for a bit though, as it's a bit more complex than everything else, but I figure if we can move non-core packages out of current, the rename will be fairly easy.

On 5/18/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:38:22PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/18/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:50:37PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2007/5/18, Aaron Griffin :

...

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup

So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend. If anyone want to help out, that'd be great. In addition, please voice your opinions about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about this, so I've left it alone:

* Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?) Yes. (Not sure if xorg will belong to Core, so probably move xorg to extra too)

...

* Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO) depends on Core decission (which was done on DevMeeting, but no pkglist agreed yet)

...

* Rename current to "core" ? YESSSS!!! http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages

So we've actually defined what core packages are? I just want to make sure so we don't start fighting over what goes in and what doesn't.

I haven't heard input. I'm going to run with the "no news is good news" adage.

I wrote a question on the Core_Packages page that no one answered. I think some people think this is more of a nuclear power plant than a bikeshed.

Replied.

That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves right away. We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in. So, if no one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?

Sounds good to me.

On 5/31/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:51:03AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 5/18/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup

So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend. If anyone want to help out, that'd be great. In addition, please voice your opinions about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about this, so I've left it alone:

* Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?) * Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO) * Rename current to "core" ? * Anything else?

I just wanted to say well done on this, Aaron, for taking the initiative and doing it. Here are the current repo sizes and changes from my original counts: Current: 557 (-6 packages) Extra: 1905 (-114 packages) Community: 1486 (+289 packages)

As you can see, some of the burden has shifted which is a good thing in my eyes.

In addition there is a community cleanup initiative going on, which should kill off the stagnant packages there too.

...

Do we need to go anywhere with the above stuff, such as moving some desktop apps out of current, etc.? It may allow them to be built with a more complete feature set than they are when put in current.

That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves right away. We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in. So, if no one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?

Why xorg? What's the use having xorg in current if nothing else can use it? Isn't that a pretty good argument for having it outside of current? The whole cross-repo dependencies...

Umm, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of packages which depend on "up level" packages. For instance, glibc is in current. The reason I feel that xorg should stay in current is more-or-less that it's as important, to a desktop install, as the kernel and glibc and the like.

That just means that current becomes core, doesn't it?

I replied to you wiki response about core a little while ago: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages

There's some cross talk here. This isn't the "core" stuff per-se, it's just cleaning things up and putting them where they belong, not trying to carve out a distinctive set of packages.

On 5/31/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:13:38PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:51:03AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 5/18/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup

So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend. If anyone want to help out, that'd be great. In addition, please voice your opinions about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about this, so I've left it alone:

* Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?) * Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO) * Rename current to "core" ? * Anything else?

I just wanted to say well done on this, Aaron, for taking the initiative and doing it. Here are the current repo sizes and changes from my original counts: Current: 557 (-6 packages) Extra: 1905 (-114 packages) Community: 1486 (+289 packages)

As you can see, some of the burden has shifted which is a good thing in my eyes.

In addition there is a community cleanup initiative going on, which should kill off the stagnant packages there too.

...

Do we need to go anywhere with the above stuff, such as moving some desktop apps out of current, etc.? It may allow them to be built with a more complete feature set than they are when put in current.

That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves right away. We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in. So, if no one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?

Why xorg? What's the use having xorg in current if nothing else can use it? Isn't that a pretty good argument for having it outside of current? The whole cross-repo dependencies...

Umm, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of packages which depend on "up level" packages. For instance, glibc is in current. The reason I feel that xorg should stay in current is more-or-less that it's as important, to a desktop install, as the kernel and glibc and the like.

...

That just means that current becomes core, doesn't it?

I replied to you wiki response about core a little while ago: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages

There's some cross talk here. This isn't the "core" stuff per-se, it's just cleaning things up and putting them where they belong, not trying to carve out a distinctive set of packages.

I think my problem is that I still don't know the differences between this "core" repository and moving all the desktop stuff out of current.

I still don't know what "core" is supposed to mean, so to me it sounds like putting packages where they belong is the same thing as creating a core repository.

Hmmm well, the way I think of it. Moving desktop stuff to extra just seems "appropriate". We've discussed, maybe 20 times or so, that the line between current and extra makes no sense anymore. Current was intended to be "one of everything that we can fit on a CD" and that's moot now (squashfs can give you me a 350MB full arch install in a 115MB ISO - squash-lzma is even better, I think I got the same install down to around 90MB or so). Also, confining the repo due to size just seems silly now. We have no real reigning criteria for what makes current "current", so that's where this is heading. The moving of desktop stuff to extra is an effort to "define" what the current repo is. Regarding the "core" stuff, I had said a few times - completely ignore that page - forget it exists. The intent of the core repo thing is totally different, but with, potentially, a similar end result. That said, please please ignore the "core repo". I am currently just working in terms of "clean up", which involves organization. It seems many people in the community agree (from the vote column) that desktop should be moved to extra. I don't see any harm in it. Can you point out any cons besides something like "it takes work" (because, of course, I will do that)?

On 6/1/07, Jason Chu wrote:

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:13:38PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Jason Chu wrote:

...

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:51:03AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On 5/31/07, Dan McGee wrote: > On 5/18/07, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup > > > > So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot > > more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend. If anyone want to > > help out, that'd be great. In addition, please voice your opinions > > about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about > > this, so I've left it alone: > > > > * Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?) > > * Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO) > > * Rename current to "core" ? > > * Anything else? > > I just wanted to say well done on this, Aaron, for taking the > initiative and doing it. Here are the current repo sizes and changes > from my original counts: > Current: 557 (-6 packages) > Extra: 1905 (-114 packages) > Community: 1486 (+289 packages) > > As you can see, some of the burden has shifted which is a good thing in my eyes.

In addition there is a community cleanup initiative going on, which should kill off the stagnant packages there too.

> Do we need to go anywhere with the above stuff, such as moving some > desktop apps out of current, etc.? It may allow them to be built with > a more complete feature set than they are when put in current.

That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves right away. We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in. So, if no one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?

Why xorg? What's the use having xorg in current if nothing else can use it? Isn't that a pretty good argument for having it outside of current? The whole cross-repo dependencies...

Umm, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of packages which depend on "up level" packages. For instance, glibc is in current. The reason I feel that xorg should stay in current is more-or-less that it's as important, to a desktop install, as the kernel and glibc and the like.

...

That just means that current becomes core, doesn't it?

I replied to you wiki response about core a little while ago: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages

There's some cross talk here. This isn't the "core" stuff per-se, it's just cleaning things up and putting them where they belong, not trying to carve out a distinctive set of packages.

I think my problem is that I still don't know the differences between this "core" repository and moving all the desktop stuff out of current.

I still don't know what "core" is supposed to mean, so to me it sounds like putting packages where they belong is the same thing as creating a core repository.

Hmmm well, the way I think of it. Moving desktop stuff to extra just seems "appropriate". We've discussed, maybe 20 times or so, that the line between current and extra makes no sense anymore. Current was intended to be "one of everything that we can fit on a CD" and that's moot now (squashfs can give you me a 350MB full arch install in a 115MB ISO - squash-lzma is even better, I think I got the same install down to around 90MB or so). Also, confining the repo due to size just seems silly now. We have no real reigning criteria for what makes current "current", so that's where this is heading.

The moving of desktop stuff to extra is an effort to "define" what the current repo is. Regarding the "core" stuff, I had said a few times - completely ignore that page - forget it exists. The intent of the core repo thing is totally different, but with, potentially, a similar end result.

Ok, so I'm trying to ignore the core stuff. Ignoring that, what is the definition of current? So far I've seen "not desktop apps". Does that mean console apps are ok? Bluetooth libs? Is cdparanoia a desktop app even though it's not graphical? Is cups really a desktop app? I'm just as likely to use it on a print server... Fetchmail isn't graphical at all, but you could argue that reading email is a desktop use.

I don't know what your definition is, so the choices seem arbitrary.

The entire list and little voting system in there was done with the specific intent of defining current - that's just the thing, no one knows what it should be. You bring up cups - it's on the list sure, but look at the unofficial vote thing - consensus says is stays in current (2 to 18 for moving to extra). Apache as well. I'm not using my feelings or even asking specific people what they think - interested parties went to that page and said "I am an arch user and this is how I feel about this package" - it's a feeling-out, and it appears that things like enlightenment should move to extra (17 to 0 vote) according to those interested in the topic (obviously, uninterested parties don't add to the page, and if they're uninterested it means it doesn't matter where the packages are to them).

It also doesn't help that the wiki page says, "Allow "current" to be a more core set of packages that are crucial to the distribution".

It's a wiki, feel free to delete that if it makes it unclear - or feel free to document it further.

I'm also a little afraid of moving packages without fully knowing the ramifications of the changes. Makedepends and all that. If pyrex were moved to community, orca (part of gnome-extra) would also have to go, for example. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the wiki page (till I added it).

You are aware that I've checked these things before for 90% of the packages I've moved, right? I actually have a list of packages on my desk at home that has 20 or so packages, all crossed off, except for pyrex - I do check these things, it's not haphazard.

...

Ok, so I'm trying to ignore the core stuff. Ignoring that, what is the definition of current? So far I've seen "not desktop apps". Does that mean console apps are ok? Bluetooth libs? Is cdparanoia a desktop app even though it's not graphical? Is cups really a desktop app? I'm just as likely to use it on a print server... Fetchmail isn't graphical at all, but you could argue that reading email is a desktop use.

I don't know what your definition is, so the choices seem arbitrary.

The entire list and little voting system in there was done with the specific intent of defining current - that's just the thing, no one knows what it should be.

You bring up cups - it's on the list sure, but look at the unofficial vote thing - consensus says is stays in current (2 to 18 for moving to extra). Apache as well.

I'm not using my feelings or even asking specific people what they think - interested parties went to that page and said "I am an arch user and this is how I feel about this package" - it's a feeling-out, and it appears that things like enlightenment should move to extra (17 to 0 vote) according to those interested in the topic (obviously, uninterested parties don't add to the page, and if they're uninterested it means it doesn't matter where the packages are to them).

Ok, that's fair enough. Then it is *very* important that everyone at least glance at the list. If all of this stuff happens and someone says, "but, why did this thing move there?", no one will have any sympathy. It's also the same with someone saying, "<sarcasm>well thanks a lot guys, now package XYZ won't compile</sarcasm>". You have your chance now to look at it before packages get moved. Do something.

...

I'm also a little afraid of moving packages without fully knowing the ramifications of the changes. Makedepends and all that. If pyrex were moved to community, orca (part of gnome-extra) would also have to go, for example. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the wiki page (till I added it).

You are aware that I've checked these things before for 90% of the packages I've moved, right? I actually have a list of packages on my desk at home that has 20 or so packages, all crossed off, except for pyrex - I do check these things, it's not haphazard.

Honestly, I was not aware of that. Not trying to question your abilities or anything, but lots of things like these happen (usually on a smaller scale) without a lot of background checking going into them. Jason

On 5/31/07, Eric Belanger wrote:

I think that we are going a bit too fast here. I believe that the cleanup isn't done yet. There are still stuff (like WM dockapps) that could be removed. XMMS has been moved to community repo (it hasn't been removed from current yet) but there are a couple of packages in current/extra that have xmms as a makedepends/depends. We should fix these to complete the removal of xmms from the current repo. What about standalone libraries, python and perl modules? Did anyone checked for these? These are all things that should be done before starting to move stuff from current to extra. Perhaps all of this is in a "part 2" that hasn't been done yet.

To throw some project management terminology around: I'm trying to do this with the "iterative method". That is, small steps, complete one iteration, repeat. What you're talking about is the "waterfall method", or rather do each step to completion before moving to the next. Cleaning up some straggling packages is important, sure, but it's something that could be done passively right now, while we move on to the next active step. As for xmms, I'd put that ball into the maintainer's court... though perhaps they aren't aware of it. I'll start a new mail for that, just so it's more visible. Regarding WindowMaker - did we actually remove this? I thought this one was iffy and actually some people do use it. I'd say windowmaker gets about as much usage as IceWM... though I agree the dockapps are cruft.

On 6/11/07, Jan de Groot wrote:

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 09:51 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves right away. We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in. So, if no one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?

I think Xorg would belong to current because it's the core graphics system, for the rest most desktop things could move.

Yeah I agree with that too. When it comes to graphics, xorg is as important as, say, bash for command line stuff.