On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Alessio Bolognino wrote:

On Thu 2008-06-19 20:14, Neil Darlow wrote:

...

Hi, I don't agree with Arch's reluctance to fix bugs which they consider upstream. I recently installed Mandriva on one of my systems and was amazed to see all the features that are broken in Arch's GNOME, due to them being upstream bugs, fully working in that distribution.

As my principle reason for using GNU/Linux is to get work done and Arch's philosophy seems, to me, to be working against this I feel it is time to depart from Arch. [...]

Why don't use stop using GNOME instead and complain on their mailing list? Don't get me wrong, this is not intended to be an aggressive email at all, but if the bug is upstream... well, it's upstream fault.

I totally agree with Alessio. we should start patching large pieces of software ourselves. We have neither the resources nor the philosophical interest to do that. --vk

It is best we keep emotion away from technical matters; there's no need for persuasion. I see this as a mail informing me of orphaned packages, that is all.

I generally don't aggree with the "upstream" philosophy as well - or at least not to 100 %. Bugs can (of course) be upstream bugs. As in other distributions, bugs SHOULD get fixed in arch. I'm not saying that the devs must fix bugs in the upstream distributions, but at least the bugs should be followed upstream, and if a patch is available fixing the problem - it should get fixed (patched) in arch as well. Most of the problems in arch, like kernel performance regression problems with glx (bug #10328 in bugzilla.kernel.org, submitted in march - fixed in the 2.6.25.8 release which is 1 day old - 4 month at all) , gnome bugs, kio bugs in kde3, as well as many others have upstream fixes available. Due to the arch philosophy, they will never appear until they are available upstream. This saves a lot of time to the devs, of course. Thogh, waiting half a year for fixes can be annoying (or is annoying if they directly effect you). The "don't use gnome" solution is NOT a solution at all. You get used to a desktop, used to a way of working and it's tools.You don't want to change desktop and play around if you want to get work done. Since a long time, i recompile arch sources (in the same version as the one in the repos, including the revision number) with the according patches i personally need. That's not what it should be, and I had intentions to change to another system a quite long time ago - if i wouldn't need to change to BSD then, since Arch is the only linux I personally know with a BSD like RC style and /etc layout - which i like... and a quite good package management (i don't like rpm, and slacks tools - and don't know a similar .deb system), not saying I'd like to change to BSD (most likely causes troubles, at least as a C/C++ dev, I'm basically not a friend porting software i need or want to try. The better "community support" at least is available for linux. Kind regards, Georg On 6/20/08, Angel Velásquez wrote:

I think if someone want orphan packages or use another distro good, but we aren't interested, and probably Neil cancel his subscription on this list, so, maybe he is not reading this.

So, if he changed to Mandriva (come on dude, don't tell me that you don't find something in Arch that Mandriva has, maybe... ugly graphics?) good for him.

</flame>

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

It is best we keep emotion away from technical matters; there's no need for persuasion. I see this as a mail informing me of orphaned packages, that is all.

-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User