Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 18:27, Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> a écrit :
On 9/16/19 10:38 AM, fredbezies via aur-general wrote:
Hello.
Note: posting in the right mailing list now. Oops!
I hope it is the right place to discuss about this issue. I noticed there is a lot of OpenRC related packages on AUR. I don't want to start a flamewar, I just want to know what is going on with these PKGBUILDs.
A quick search gave me 42 answers - some not related to this init system - 95% of them last updated between 2015 and 2018.
Note: I forgot to set my options to receive every single message, so I'll be answering everybody here.
openrc-git and openrc-arch-services-git are, in fact, git packages, so it doesn't matter if they haven't been updated since 2015. openrc-sysvinit is hardly receiving daily updates, so likewise it's entirely reasonable to be an old package.
Ok. https://download.ghostbsd.org/releases/amd64/latest/GhostBSD19.09.iso
Is it flagged out of date? No? I think we call that "stable software that works". :)
Or could not, as these are git packages :D
Only two of the openrc-related packages are flagged out of date for any significant time. Feel free to request something be done about strongswan-nosystemd and docker-openrc-scripts-git.
Well, I was just looking at packages in AUR.
Is there any interest of keeping these PKGBUILDs? There is an official Archlinux + OpenRC init system called Artix, providing a migration guide from Arch or Manjaro.
One of the core archlinux developers is the maintainer of openrc and openrc-sysvinit (and openrc-git). One assumes this is not against the rules. https://www.archlinux.org/people/developers/#andrew
I did not know. I apologize.
As for "interest", the AUR is not in the business of determining whether there is "interest" in a package. Our submission guidelines state that packages must be useful enough that other users *may* be interested in it, a criterion that is graded on good faith. Well, openrc is obviously useful enough for other distributions to base themselves on it, so it is clearly not software that is specific to one person that cannot be feasibly expected to be used by others.
Ok. I just wanted to get such an explanation. Nothing more.
It is also listed in https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch-based_distributions#Active
"Artix Linux *2016, previously Arch-OpenRC"
https://artixlinux.org/ https://wiki.artixlinux.org/Main/Migration
Artix Linux may be based on Arch with openrc, but Manjaro Linux is based on Arch with systemd. Does that mean that it is forbidden for Arch users to use systemd, because it is also used by a derivative? No, that would be an extremely foolish idea.
Indeed! I just remember some manjaro related packages to be deleted because they were using manjaro dependencies in some ways.
No one cares if another distribution uses something. We only care if Arch Linux could potentially use it. If so, it is useful.
Ok.
Arch Linux is a distribution that people make into what they want it to be. This stuff is definitely useful to at least some people. We will not play politics and tell people that they're not allowed to publicly experiment with different init systems -- we will simply refrain from pushing that into [core], and expect them to make a good-faith effort in the forums to alert people regarding their unique configurations.
Core access is restricted to developers only, if I'm right.
By the way, it is written in the wiki that : "Warning: Arch Linux only has official support for systemd. When using OpenRC, please mention so in support requests."
Source: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC
Is there any explanations for keeping them?
Thanks for your answers.
So, the wiki explicitly clarifies that one is permitted to use openrc and if you do use openrc you are still eligible to receive help in the official support forums (as long as you let people know you are using it).
Well, it is obvious.
The context of this is that if you install Arch Linux according to the Arch Way, then you are running Arch Linux... even if you later go ahead and install a custom kernel, or systemd-git. It is really no different if you go ahead and install linux-libre, openrc, and whatever other special interests packages you want to replace core system components.
Some projects are directly based on these technologies, providing their own repository. I thought it was simpler to use directly ISO from these projects.
What matters is that you built up your system from Arch Linux, and any deviations from the official Arch Linux repositories are achieved by your own labor, which you understand. (Do not try to use this as an excuse to get support for Manjaro, Artix, or Parabola, you will get banned.)
I won't ask any support for any of these distributions, even if I'm using one of them on my old laptop. I'm a 10 years long Archlinux user, who had known Archlinux 0.7x ISO... Good old /etc/rc.conf times... Or not!
I am therefore unsure why you think we need an "explanation" for keeping them, as though it is some sort of dirty secret and we need to air the laundry and demand explanations from the "guilty parties" via some form of mob-with-pitchfork mentality.
I just wanted to be sure why they were on AUR. Nothing less, nothing more. No tricky plans! Thanks a lot for your long answer.
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-- Frederic Bezies fredbezies@gmail.com