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

[Aaron Griffin]

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.