[aur-general] Should I bring rpm/dkpg to community
Hi TU's, I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far... Allan
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:07 +1000 Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Allan
Arch Users don't need them. IMO these votes are from noob people that want to install rpm ( bleah ) or deb pkg in their archlinux box, when the right thing is searching trought aur or make PKGBUILD. But is your choice :) -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User
2008/4/6, JJDaNiMoTh <jjdanimoth@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:07 +1000 Arch Users don't need them. IMO these votes are from noob people that want to install rpm ( bleah ) or deb pkg in their archlinux box, when the right thing is searching trought aur or make PKGBUILD.
But is your choice :) Exactly, i don't think they are necessary.
-- Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino Arch Linux Trusted User Linux User: #430842
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Allan
As far as I am concerned, rpm, dpkg, etc... are just pieces of software. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in community. It would even be an advantage, you could install distributions that use dpkg or rpm from Arch Linux. Glenn
2008/4/6, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be>:
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
As far as I am concerned, rpm, dpkg, etc... are just pieces of software. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in community. It would even be an advantage, you could install distributions that use dpkg or rpm from Arch Linux.
I think they shouldn't be in community for reasons similar to why qpkg/aurbuild/yaourt are not in community. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
IMHO that isn't enough of a warrant for it to be in [community]. If we want to take into consideration such a reasoning, then akin to what danimoth mentioned, we should see a few other tools in the repo too. Furthermore, 27 and 33 only barely pass as "popular". Well in any case, if a TU wants, he gets. On 06/04/2008, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Allan
As far as I am concerned, rpm, dpkg, etc... are just pieces of software. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included in community. It would even be an advantage, you could install distributions that use dpkg or rpm from Arch Linux.
Glenn
Allan McRae wrote:
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far... I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already. These packages would make it slightly easier to install them but also give the ability to create these package formats which is why I grabbed dpkg in the first place. Allan
Hi, Allan McRae wrote:
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
Perhaps pragmatic would be a better assessment.
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already.
But while they're not in Community, they are labelled Unsupported. I'm just thinking of the potential for breakage that can occur when people start mixing packages from foreign distributions with those of Arch and start complaining when it doesn't work. You can always use the "Not Supported" card but if they're in Community then there is the suggestion that these mechanisms are supported. Regards, Neil Darlow
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:12:02 +0100 Neil Darlow <neil@darlow.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
Allan McRae wrote:
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
Perhaps pragmatic would be a better assessment.
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already.
But while they're not in Community, they are labelled Unsupported. I'm just thinking of the potential for breakage that can occur when people start mixing packages from foreign distributions with those of Arch and start complaining when it doesn't work.
You can always use the "Not Supported" card but if they're in Community then there is the suggestion that these mechanisms are supported.
Fully agree here... -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User
Hi,
Allan McRae wrote:
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
Perhaps pragmatic would be a better assessment.
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already.
But while they're not in Community, they are labelled Unsupported. I'm just thinking of the potential for breakage that can occur when people start mixing packages from foreign distributions with those of Arch and start complaining when it doesn't work.
You can always use the "Not Supported" card but if they're in Community then there is the suggestion that these mechanisms are supported.
You are being *too* nice Neil. These packages ARE supported once they are in the Community repo. Very best regards; Bob Finch
Regards, Neil Darlow
Hi Bob, w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:
You are being *too* nice Neil.
Thanks, in general it's a good policy ;-)
These packages ARE supported once they are in the Community repo.
I was referring to the use of dpkg and rpm to maintain a system was being suggested as supported in Community. Regards, Neil Darlow
Neil Darlow wrote:
Hi,
Allan McRae wrote:
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
Perhaps pragmatic would be a better assessment.
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already.
But while they're not in Community, they are labelled Unsupported. I'm just thinking of the potential for breakage that can occur when people start mixing packages from foreign distributions with those of Arch and start complaining when it doesn't work.
Since when do we assume the user is dumb?
You can always use the "Not Supported" card but if they're in Community then there is the suggestion that these mechanisms are supported.
Regards, Neil Darlow
On Sun 2008-04-06 16:23 , RedShift wrote:
Neil Darlow wrote:
Hi,
Allan McRae wrote:
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
Perhaps pragmatic would be a better assessment.
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already.
But while they're not in Community, they are labelled Unsupported. I'm just thinking of the potential for breakage that can occur when people start mixing packages from foreign distributions with those of Arch and start complaining when it doesn't work.
Since when do we assume the user is dumb?
If the user is not dumb, he can convert the rpm/deb/whatever in an Arch package (compiling the software or using rpm2targz and the like): in this way pacman can handle it. Seriously, I think that having stuff like dpkg in a (semi)official repo could bring the user to think that we support deb packages. We don't have in [community] software that install packages from the AUR for the very same reason: we don't support them. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
Hi, RedShift wrote:
Since when do we assume the user is dumb?
Experience has taught me that it is unwise to assume anything, especially where users are concerned ;-) Regards, Neil Darlow
Allan McRae wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Well, I seem to have a fairly negative reaction on average so far...
I just want to point out that if a user wants to install a rpm/deb package, all the tools are in extra/community already. These packages would make it slightly easier to install them but also give the ability to create these package formats which is why I grabbed dpkg in the first place.
Thanks for all the comments. I will _NOT_ be moving these to community. I had never actually considered moving dpkg to community until I received a couple of emails from users asking me to do so. As I said in my first email, I thought they were "unArchlike" (another real word!) As an aside, the argument that it can screw up a users system is not a great one. I've seen rm ruin a system but we still keep coreutils... :D Allan
2008/4/6, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com>:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
We don't need them. I am against putting these packages in [community] repo. -- Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:07 +1000 Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Hi. I'm not a TU but can I state my opinion too? I would say NO. A resounding unequivocal NO to rpm and dpkg. Heh. I even have objections about them being in [unsupported]. Sorry if I interrupted the conversation, but I couldn't resist. Cheers.
2008/4/6, Loui <louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
Hi. I'm not a TU but can I state my opinion too? I would say NO. A resounding unequivocal NO to rpm and dpkg. Heh. I even have objections about them being in [unsupported].
Sorry if I interrupted the conversation, but I couldn't resist.
You can state your opinion too. This is not a private conversation for TUs only. -- Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:05:01 +0200 "Giovanni Scafora" <linuxmania@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/4/6, Loui <louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
Hi. I'm not a TU but can I state my opinion too?
You can state your opinion too. This is not a private conversation for TUs only.
Thanks. Yeah I think part of the idea behind [community] is to highlight and preview packages that -might- make it to [extra]. That would probably never happen with rpm and dpkg.
We shouldn't disqualify something just because it's "that something" (: They're being excluded not because they have relation to "debs and rpms", but because they fall in the same paradigm as tools like yaourt, well somewhat at least. We already have - for administrative purposes - rpmextract and checkinstall. Wow, this one's received a lot of attention in such a short time. Infamous is the word, hate is the subject? On 06/04/2008, Loui <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:07 +1000 Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
Hi. I'm not a TU but can I state my opinion too? I would say NO. A resounding unequivocal NO to rpm and dpkg. Heh. I even have objections about them being in [unsupported].
Sorry if I interrupted the conversation, but I couldn't resist.
Cheers.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi TU's,
I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped me moving dpkg so far...
The main reason for not doing this is that it will collide with pacman package management in more ways than one - the clearest is that dependencies will not always be the right version, and installing a deb on your machine may not work. What do you think happens to all the debs someone installed the next time openssl is upgraded?
Hi, I want to say something to that dpkg package because I maintain some debian-related packages in AUR [1]. I ported some packages from Debian to ArchLinux. I didn't port it because I want to have deb packages on ArchLinux but I want to build deb packages on ArchLinux. I ported for example pbuilder (needs dpkg) so everyone can build clean und nice debs without to have real Debian installation. I didn't think that many people want to use dpkg as his primary package management in Arch. Maybe they want it like me... develop on ArchLinux for Debian/Ubuntu/... ;-) Best Regards, André Klitzing [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=Misery
Hello, for that purpose it is okay to have dpkg, but honestly, there are not many people who use a ArchLinux system for building packages for other systems than ArchLinux. On the other hand there is the danger of having people who see a nice rpm ore deb somewhere and say "oh, there is no PKGBUILD for that, lets installa it using dpkg." They can do it now using the PKGBUILD for dpkg, but that is one step more. Stefan -----Original Message----- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:00:26 +0200 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Should I bring rpm/dkpg to community From: "A. Klitzing" To: aur-general@archlinux.org Hi, I want to say something to that dpkg package because I maintain some debian-related packages in AUR [1]. I ported some packages from Debian to ArchLinux. I didn't port it because I want to have deb packages on ArchLinux but I want to build deb packages on ArchLinux. I ported for example pbuilder (needs dpkg) so everyone can build clean und nice debs without to have real Debian installation. I didn't think that many people want to use dpkg as his primary package management in Arch. Maybe they want it like me... develop on ArchLinux for Debian/Ubuntu/... ;-) Best Regards, André Klitzing [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=Misery
participants (14)
-
A. Klitzing
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alessio Bolognino
-
Allan McRae
-
BaSh
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
JJDaNiMoTh
-
Loui
-
Neil Darlow
-
Ray Rashif
-
RedShift
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
stefan-husmann＠t-online.de
-
w9ya＠qrparci.net