[arch-general] arch health

[ITwrx.org]

On 04/19/2017 07:22 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would be concerned, if too many security features not everybody needs,
> would become default. Why not dropping security features completely and
> instead making real-time optimised features the default? This is a
> rhetorical question, but actually I would prefer the latter.
>
> In my experiences Arch is very healthy.
>
> I doubt that many packages are outdated.
>
> Right off the bat a few come to mind, e.g.
>
>  claws-mail and clawsker
>
> but we had Easter holidays and some packages are already in testing.
>
> Other packages, such as e.g.
>
>  ardour
>
> are out of date for a long time, but the maintainer explained why he has
> got no time for a while. Apart from this Ardour is niche software.
>
> Each of the outdated packages I noticed still build using ABS or AUR
> PKGBUILDs by just changing the version and skipping or changing the
> checksums or they require minimal additional editing, if so I
> usually drop a note to AUR comments, how to fix the issue.
>
> It's hard to find much more packages I consider really outdated.
> I noticed that some packages from official repositories are flagged out
> of date, a few minutes after upstream released a new version, so I
> wouldn't count those packages.
>
> In my experiences Arch is a healthy rolling release. There are a few
> hiccups, but I experience less hiccups using Arch, than I experience
> serious issues with other distros.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf
>
thanks for your input. i'm not saying Arch isn't great. I use it for
everything and it would take a whole lot for that to change. I just want
the healthiest Arch possible. I think that Arch could have a few
different "build profiles" if it was possible to automate packaging a
little or if there were more devs or devs had more time to allocate to
Arch because they were getting paid. Or, if the donation system were
modernized, Arch could fund it's priorities in that regard and maybe
people choose your goals instead of mine.