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

[Jan de Groot]

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:18 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> Jan de Groot wrote:
> >> Now you're propably saying numbers of downstream decisions doesn't say 
> >> anything. Very true, which is why i prefer arguing about "intent"
> >>
> >> aep at andariel: ~ grep Maintainer /var/abs/core/dbus-core/PKGBUILD
> >> # Maintainer: Jan de Groot <jgc at archlinux.org>
> >>
> >> and "bias"
> > 
> > So, just because I'm the maintainer of a package that is required for a
> > lot of the packages I maintain makes me biased.
> 
> 
> Please read from top to down. This grep was to prove "intent".
> It is in fact, not required for alot of packages upstream, and 
> especially there is no valid reason to put it in core.

Ah, so my intent is to put dbus support in every possible package in the
repository. Am I convicted now? What's the sentence?

> 
> > we do specifically enable
> > config-dbus, but dbus is a dependency anyways:
> 
> 
> indeed, i am wrong on this one.  hal is already upstream default.
> 
> 
> >> aep at andariel: ~ (for i in $(grep "Jan de Groot"  /var/abs/ -r | cut -d 
> >> ':' -f 1 | cut -d '/' -f 5); do  if (pacman -Si $i | grep gnome 
> >>  >/dev/null); then echo $i; fi; done) | wc -l
> >> 149
> > 
> > Ooh, so I'm the GNOME maintainer, what next?
> 
> please don't quote out of context.  this statement was to prove your 
> bias towards gnome, which in combination with the above dbus-core point, 
> shows why this is a problem.

dbus is a freedesktop.org project, gnome isn't. The fact that GNOME uses
a freedesktop.org project has nothing to do with the fact that I enable
dbus support in packages that need it.

> > I never even installed Ubuntu on any system, how can I prefer it? Arch
> > has thousands of packages that need to work together, sometimes you
> > can't stick to your so called "unix philosophy".
> 
> Thank's for confirming once again that you do NOT wish to follow unix 
> philosophy.
> This was indeed, the entire point of this rant.

So, the fact that I maintain desktop software and the fact that I can't
always follow the vanilla configure options make me not wish to follow
them. I don't see your point.

Let's take a look at a bug you reported: the qt bug. You filed a bug
that asked to remove all patches. For some of the patches, I think
you're right, for others, I don't think you're right. One of your
removed patches is one that integrates use of ca-certificates in qt
instead of the bundled certificates. By following your so-called "unix
philosophy", you want us to ship several certificate bundles with the
same certificates with every package that needs certificate bundles.
This is nice if Qt is the only piece of software on your system, but as
soon as a 2nd package is installed with a certificate bundle, it's a
waste of disk space and a complication of management.