[arch-dev-public] repo reorg
paul at mattal.com
Wed Jul 11 09:23:11 EDT 2007
Dale Blount wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 07:31 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> On 7/11/07, Paul Mattal <paul at 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
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
More information about the arch-dev-public