[arch-general] arch health

[Francisco Barbee]

 > On 20 April 2017 at 14:07:54, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Hi, are you in a hurry?

Not at all. But I can imagine what feels someone
who made effort to make things better by writing
patches which are still ignored year after.

> IMO it's unhealthy to be in a hurry, apart from
this seemingly not everybody needs those security
features.

Some people need them, some don't. You can just
ignore this topic instead of writing another post
about how much you don't need it.

> Arch isn't ill, there seems to be no foreseeable
risk that Arch could become ill. If somebody
should really experience some illness, then please
don't be vague, post a pointer to the illness.

OP already mentioned few things. You can look into
https://www.archlinux.org/todo/ and
https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-dev-public
to see how many things are need to be done. One
example is abs which wasn't maintained for years.

> I only claim that I don't experience illness and
that my impression is, that Arch is distinctly
healthy. In my experience more healthy, than any
other distro I experience/experienced.

It's not really about being healthy but being
healthier

> Imagine everybody who wants something, Arch
doesn't provide, would argue with being "a little
concerned about arch's overall health", to get it
into Arch.

Enabling those flags was already decided by devs
regardless how much you hate it. It's lack of
execution which is concern here. Maybe bigger
issue than Arch health is attitude of some people
who're trying hard to water-down any attempt to
make things better. If you don't  need any help
let others help those who need it.