[arch-dev-public] Package Cleanup: Part II
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu May 31 15:14:59 EDT 2007
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
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
That said, please please ignore the "core repo". I am currently just
working in terms of "clean up", which involves organization. It seems
many people in the community agree (from the vote column) that desktop
should be moved to extra.
I don't see any harm in it. Can you point out any cons besides
something like "it takes work" (because, of course, I will do that)?
More information about the arch-dev-public