[arch-dev-public] repo reorg
I support reorganizing, but like the fact that a single full CD can give me a pretty useful system if I'm a disconnected install. I also support using more repos rather than fewer, since with repoman the repos will become less of a hassle to manage. I support wide driver support, but don't think wireless drivers need to be installed on every box! So let me take a shot at a scheme: [core]: installed whenever Arch is installed draws from existing base category minimize size free/unencumbered only stringent review/discussion for changing [support]: drivers/utilities needed for installs included on core install cd [lite]: fits on cd with installer free/unencumbered as much function as we can pack into 1 cd stringent review/discussion for changing [full]: everything else this should continue to fit on 1 of some medium (now DVD) Nice aspects of this include that people who want a totally free system can rely on lite providing that, core can be really small, and people can have all the drivers they need at install time. - P
On 7/11/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
I support reorganizing, but like the fact that a single full CD can give me a pretty useful system if I'm a disconnected install.
Here's what I find silly about the "1 cd" requirement. Not only can squashfs, with varying compression levels, make this a never ending argument as to the real size, we also generally support "modern hardware" (or used to). This means that we should probably be supporting DVDs. Now, go ask around. I'll bet ya any money that most people you ask install from the base or ftp isos. Most people who like the current ISO are more like you - it's more of a special case thing. Well, lets run with that. If this is a special case for some and not all users, why don't we throw some tools at it? Make some tools that create a repo-on-a-disk and just use that? This seems way more ideal and won't cause us to split our workload (or, rather, won't cause Andy and tpowa to do extra work they probably won't use) for more edge case stuff. Most people are drawn to Arch because of the minimal/lightweight aspect. No one says "I'll install as many packages as I can! And ones that other people chose for me to boot!"
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 07:31 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 7/11/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
I support reorganizing, but like the fact that a single full CD can give me a pretty useful system if I'm a disconnected install.
Here's what I find silly about the "1 cd" requirement. Not only can squashfs, with varying compression levels, make this a never ending argument as to the real size, we also generally support "modern hardware" (or used to). This means that we should probably be supporting DVDs.
Now, go ask around. I'll bet ya any money that most people you ask install from the base or ftp isos. Most people who like the current ISO are more like you - it's more of a special case thing.
I can't remember the last time I installed from anything other than the ftp disk. Even on systems that are disconnected, I normally take them somewhere with a fast connection to do install/upgrade, then they just sit where they're at after that. If they ever need upgraded again I could burn current and extra to a dvd or put it on a flash disk. I don't tend to go to people's houses without internet and expect to install Arch and have everything work without upgrading or checking wiki/google. Dale
Dale Blount wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 07:31 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 7/11/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
I support reorganizing, but like the fact that a single full CD can give me a pretty useful system if I'm a disconnected install. Here's what I find silly about the "1 cd" requirement. Not only can squashfs, with varying compression levels, make this a never ending argument as to the real size, we also generally support "modern hardware" (or used to). This means that we should probably be supporting DVDs.
Now, go ask around. I'll bet ya any money that most people you ask install from the base or ftp isos. Most people who like the current ISO are more like you - it's more of a special case thing.
I can't remember the last time I installed from anything other than the ftp disk. Even on systems that are disconnected, I normally take them somewhere with a fast connection to do install/upgrade, then they just sit where they're at after that. If they ever need upgraded again I could burn current and extra to a dvd or put it on a flash disk. I don't tend to go to people's houses without internet and expect to install Arch and have everything work without upgrading or checking wiki/google.
One thing not to miss.. my design was trying to accomplish 2 things with the [lite] repository: 1) give people a good alternative to downloading/mirroring/carrying EVERYTHING with some knowledge that some smart people have put together a toolkit for them with one of everything 2) provide a guaranteed free/unencumbered repository; if you're big on free software, you can rely on things in current being totally free I admit that #1 is not so often useful. I should clarify; I don't recommend we ship a [lite] installer each release. Just core+support and a barebones ftp installer. The benefit of separating [lite] comes just from one set of broadly functional packages having been chosen by people who collectively know a lot about Arch to be put into [lite]. If you're on a desert island with a laptop with a CD-ROM drive, this is the one CD you want to have with you. I also concede that I don't care about #2 as much as some others. But I thought there were people who really cared about this, and wanted to provide them an easy way to know they're running a totally unencumbered (meaning GPL or less stringent) system where they have the source code to everything and can modify/tweak/understand it. If the masses don't want [lite], I will not be upset. I just see it providing value without requiring much effort. Anyone will be able to create their own "[lite]" with repoman, but that person will not do as good a job at providing a broadly useful set of functionality as the group. This is a feature we actually have now that we would be discarding, and it doesn't seem like there's much effort required to keep it. Why throw it away? - P
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:23:11 -0400 schrieb Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com>:
One thing not to miss.. my design was trying to accomplish 2 things with the [lite] repository:
1) give people a good alternative to downloading/mirroring/carrying EVERYTHING with some knowledge that some smart people have put together a toolkit for them with one of everything
that was just a decision of taste done by the founder in the past. not everybody likes it. he wanted the Adobe Reader monster pkg (41mb) but not epdfview or any other alternative. just only one example.
2) provide a guaranteed free/unencumbered repository; if you're big on free software, you can rely on things in current being totally free
I admit that #1 is not so often useful. I should clarify; I don't recommend we ship a [lite] installer each release. Just core+support and a barebones ftp installer.
The benefit of separating [lite] comes just from one set of broadly functional packages having been chosen by people who collectively know a lot about Arch to be put into [lite]. If you're on a desert island with a laptop with a CD-ROM drive, this is the one CD you want to have with you.
CDs and in most parts texttools are still useful but no more the bleading edge Arch represents. the much bigger part now wants X+ either QT or a gtk based real window managed world for desktop systems. It's hard to satisfy this group with small CD size isos. we want to do this with DVDs in the future. Looks like "lite" is a wish for only a minor group of users and might be done outside the official dev group. Andy
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
CDs and in most parts texttools are still useful but no more the bleading edge Arch represents. the much bigger part now wants X+ either QT or a gtk based real window managed world for desktop systems. It's hard to satisfy this group with small CD size isos. we want to do this with DVDs in the future.
Looks like "lite" is a wish for only a minor group of users and might be done outside the official dev group.
[CITATION_NEEDED]
Paul Mattal schrieb:
[core]: installed whenever Arch is installed draws from existing base category minimize size free/unencumbered only stringent review/discussion for changing
[support]: drivers/utilities needed for installs included on core install cd
Why separate these. We can simply have a "base" and a "support" category in core and only install the base category by default. Having separate repos may be no problem in the future, but it is one now.
[lite]: fits on cd with installer free/unencumbered as much function as we can pack into 1 cd stringent review/discussion for changing
[full]: everything else this should continue to fit on 1 of some medium (now DVD)
And now we have the same problem we were trying to solve: what belongs to lite, what to full? Who decides it? Why is package A in full and not in lite, while package B is? You escape one dilemma by creating a new one. I don't like it and I don't think there is any way to realize this in an easy, KISS-like way, as proven by our discussion about current and extra. People should be encouraged to install from the core cd whenever possible. If a user can't, then in 90% of the cases he still wants KDE or GNOME, for which people now use the "full" iso, only to discover that they aren't there. Separating lite from full will be much more effort and discussion than benefit.
Nice aspects of this include that people who want a totally free system can rely on lite providing that, core can be really small, and people can have all the drivers they need at install time.
If people want a "free" system, they simply install stuff that is free only. I don't think we need to help them in any way. I agree that separating packages with restrictive licenses from the usual repos (like andyrtr suggested, a non-free repo), on the other hand, there are packages that are freely distributable, but not considered free by many people. (My best example is intel wireless firmware. We can distribute it on CD and FTP, but it should be in your support repository.) So someone comes and says "this is not GPL, now I have non-free software on my computer", but you promised me the lite cd would only have free software".
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:18:35AM -0400, Paul Mattal wrote:
I support reorganizing, but like the fact that a single full CD can give me a pretty useful system if I'm a disconnected install. I also support using more repos rather than fewer, since with repoman the repos will become less of a hassle to manage. I support wide driver support, but
Whats the benefit of having multiple repositories? Fedora recently merged extra and core. What's the benefit for end users, if the have to configure multiple repositories for package installation? There is no logical segmentation of packages that fits for everyone: Desktop User's want x.org in base install (contrary to Server Admin's). Jürgen
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dale Blount
-
Jürgen Hötzel
-
Paul Mattal
-
Thomas Bächler