[arch-dev-public] Package Cleanup: Part II

[Aaron Griffin]

On 6/1/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > On 5/31/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:13:38PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > > On 5/31/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:51:03AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/31/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/18/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Package_Cleanup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So the initial burst made a smallish dent, but there's still a lot
> > > > > > > > more to do, which I'd like to get to this weekend.  If anyone want to
> > > > > > > > help out, that'd be great.  In addition, please voice your opinions
> > > > > > > > about a few things (I haven't heard a lot of developers talk about
> > > > > > > > this, so I've left it alone:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Move desktop related stuff to extra? (possibly keep only xorg in current?)
> > > > > > > > * Move wireless/network modules to current? (they're that important IMO)
> > > > > > > > * Rename current to "core" ?
> > > > > > > > * Anything else?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just wanted to say well done on this, Aaron, for taking the
> > > > > > > initiative and doing it. Here are the current repo sizes and changes
> > > > > > > from my original counts:
> > > > > > > Current: 557 (-6 packages)
> > > > > > > Extra: 1905 (-114 packages)
> > > > > > > Community: 1486 (+289 packages)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you can see, some of the burden has shifted which is a good thing in my eyes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition there is a community cleanup initiative going on, which
> > > > > > should kill off the stagnant packages there too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we need to go anywhere with the above stuff, such as moving some
> > > > > > > desktop apps out of current, etc.? It may allow them to be built with
> > > > > > > a more complete feature set than they are when put in current.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the next step, and I tried to keep from doing the "big" moves
> > > > > > right away.  We'll call that "part 3" - the moving of desktop stuff
> > > > > > from current to extra, BUT no one seems to have chimed in.  So, if no
> > > > > > one speaks up, I'm going to assume it's ok to move all desktop stuff
> > > > > > to extra? Except, perhaps, xorg (and related packages) itself?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why xorg?  What's the use having xorg in current if nothing else can use
> > > > > it?  Isn't that a pretty good argument for having it outside of current?
> > > > > The whole cross-repo dependencies...
> > > >
> > > > Umm, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of packages which depend
> > > > on "up level" packages.  For instance, glibc is in current.
> > > > The reason I feel that xorg should stay in current is more-or-less
> > > > that it's as important, to a desktop install, as the kernel and glibc
> > > > and the like.
> > > >
> > > > > That just means that current becomes core, doesn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I replied to you wiki response about core a little while ago:
> > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Core_Packages
> > > >
> > > > There's some cross talk here.  This isn't the "core" stuff per-se,
> > > > it's just cleaning things up and putting them where they belong, not
> > > > trying to carve out a distinctive set of packages.
> > >
> > > I think my problem is that I still don't know the differences between
> > > this "core" repository and moving all the desktop stuff out of current.
> > >
> > > I still don't know what "core" is supposed to mean, so to me it sounds like
> > > putting packages where they belong is the same thing as creating a core
> > > repository.
> >
> > Hmmm well, the way I think of it.  Moving desktop stuff to extra just
> > seems "appropriate".  We've discussed, maybe 20 times or so, that the
> > line between current and extra makes no sense anymore.  Current was
> > intended to be "one of everything that we can fit on a CD" and that's
> > moot now (squashfs can give you me a 350MB full arch install in a
> > 115MB ISO - squash-lzma is even better, I think I got the same install
> > down to around 90MB or so).  Also, confining the repo due to size just
> > seems silly now.  We have no real reigning criteria for what makes
> > current "current", so that's where this is heading.
> >
> > The moving of desktop stuff to extra is an effort to "define" what the
> > current repo is.  Regarding the "core" stuff, I had said a few times -
> > completely ignore that page - forget it exists.  The intent of the
> > core repo thing is totally different, but with, potentially, a similar
> > end result.
>
> Ok, so I'm trying to ignore the core stuff.  Ignoring that, what is the
> definition of current?  So far I've seen "not desktop apps".  Does that
> mean console apps are ok?  Bluetooth libs?  Is cdparanoia a desktop app
> even though it's not graphical?  Is cups really a desktop app?  I'm just as
> likely to use it on a print server...  Fetchmail isn't graphical at all,
> but you could argue that reading email is a desktop use.
>
> I don't know what your definition is, so the choices seem arbitrary.

The entire list and little voting system in there was done with the
specific intent of defining current - that's just the thing, no one
knows what it should be.

You bring up cups - it's on the list sure, but look at the unofficial
vote thing - consensus says is stays in current (2 to 18 for moving to
extra).  Apache as well.

I'm not using my feelings or even asking specific people what they
think - interested parties went to that page and said "I am an arch
user and this is how I feel about this package" - it's a feeling-out,
and it appears that things like enlightenment should move to extra (17
to 0 vote) according to those interested in the topic (obviously,
uninterested parties don't add to the page, and if they're
uninterested it means it doesn't matter where the packages are to
them).


> It also doesn't help that the wiki page says, "Allow "current" to be a more
> core set of packages that are crucial to the distribution".

It's a wiki, feel free to delete that if it makes it unclear - or feel
free to document it further.

> I'm also a little afraid of moving packages without fully knowing the
> ramifications of the changes.  Makedepends and all that.  If pyrex were
> moved to community, orca (part of gnome-extra) would also have to go, for
> example.  I didn't see that mentioned anywhere on the wiki page (till I
> added it).

You are aware that I've checked these things before for 90% of the
packages I've moved, right? I actually have a list of packages on my
desk at home that has 20 or so packages, all crossed off, except for
pyrex - I do check these things, it's not haphazard.