[arch-general] Another rant on arch way abuse and false promises

[Arvid Picciani]

Ray Kohler wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee at gmail.com>:
>> When I started on here the mantra was "Arch is what you make it".
>> Packagers strive to make packages which are as vanilla as possible
>> (without breaking) and provide the utility expected of such packages. Of
>> course, if you want a system without hal/dbus, there's ABS and AUR. I
>> don't see why your dislike of particular implementations implies that
>> every user of Arch should forgo those implementations.
> 
> I've been thinking about this particular part of the "Arch way". I
> think what causes the conflict in some of these cases is that
> "trusting upstream" - one of our major principles - only works when
> upstream is sane. Wacky things (like what freedesktop.org has been
> doing to Xorg for a while now) make me begin to think this assumption
> is violated in some important cases. When upstream ceases to really
> care about Arch-like systems and only support more Ubuntu-like
> systems, we have a problem with our "don't patch" philosophy.

This implies that you're not ok with what happened to X.  So you support 
my position. What you did not realize, however, is that these things are 
not upstream defaults. They have been specifically enabled downstream by 
the arch maintainers.

It is likely that the upstream will, as a reaction to my suggestion to 
reset to upstream defaults,  add these options as default. I then 
suggest to still keep the upstream defaults, and maintain a fixed 
version of the package on aur.

The "sanity" here is very biased, hence there is no non-biased correct 
solution, other then that suggested by the founder Judd.


-- 
Arvid
Asgaard Technologies