[arch-dev-public] The Arch-ization of packages

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Sat Nov 3 23:01:29 EDT 2007

On 11/3/07, Simo Leone <simo at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:08:53PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> > Do we really need there rules? Can't we let the decision up to the
> > maintainer?
> >
> > If we really need a rule I vote for providing packages pure upstream
> > with a post.install message how to get it archiefied. Either with cp -f
> > an included archiefied config/splash/theme over the default one or
> > to show what additional package will provide the related Arch stuff.
> >
> I'm with Andy on this one. Leave it up to the maintainer. Yeah, it can
> be a bit inconsistent, but I don't really mind a mix.

I think what we need to do is be consistent. So yes, we need 'rules' -
maybe 'guidelines' is a better word.

Personally, and I don't know how possible this is, I'd love to see
branding, but SEPARATE branding, if that is possible.

As far as a guideline goes, I don't seen anyone with a huge problem
with it. Eliott mentioned it being annoying, and I agree - branding
can be intrusive. But at the same time, it shows a little "Arch Pride"
as it were.

So here's what I propose for a guideline:
Branding is a good thing, but whenever possible try to make it a
separate package. If that's not possible, then try to make the
branding as unobtrusive as possible.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list