Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?
But to tell the users to discuss this upstream is bad advice. This is a situation where a distribution should take corrective action by reverting this configuration. This would add value and remove some useless code from the kernel. No. If you want a distribution whose maintainers think it is a good think to "correct" upstream decisions, you should use not Arch.
So there isn't a single package in Arch Linux which trusted users have changed them in order to fix an issue which they thought it's better this way? If there is/was a package what is/was it and why?
So there isn't a single package in Arch Linux which trusted users have changed them in order to fix an issue which they thought it's better this way?
If there is/was a package what is/was it and why?
Arch Linux defines simplicity as without unnecessary additions or modifications. It ships software as released by the original developers (upstream) with minimal distribution-specific (downstream) changes: patches not accepted by upstream are avoided, and Arch's downstream patches consist almost entirely of backported bug fixes that are obsoleted by the project's next release. [1] [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux
participants (2)
-
Amin Vakil
-
Chaos