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

[Allan McRae]

Arvid Picciani wrote:
> Allan McRae wrote:
> 
>> I personally think your mis-reading the "Arch Way".  We do not patch 
>> to add features that are not supported upstream but I have never seen 
>> anything mentioned about using minimal configure flags.
> 
> Let me quote "the arch way 2.0"  which has a very nice condensed 
> statement that does in fact support minimalism:
> 

Nice... so not the original Arch Way as defined by Judd that you keep 
referring to...  For those that do not know this version: 
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way_v2.0 .  No offense 
meant to Jules who started writing this, but you are quoting an 
interpretation of the original design principles of Arch that has had 
absolutely no direct import from any devs.

> "
> without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications
> 
> Simplicity is the primary principle. All other principles must be 
> sacrificed in favor of design simplicity. Implementation simplicity is 
> more important than interface simplicity.
> "
> 
> Please provide an interpretaton of this statement that does support 
> enabling features for the sake of interface simplicity, breaking design 
> simplicity in the process.

So another person who mistakes the use of simplicity for minimalism. I 
thought we had been through that many, many times.

And how is adding a configure flag or a dep a sacrifice of design 
simplicity?  I see no way that statement is conflicting with either of 
the sides of this argument.

Allan