[arch-general] Proposal: add "--disable-modern-top" to procps-ng configure flags

Jonathon Fernyhough jonathon at manjaro.org
Sun Dec 10 00:10:15 UTC 2017

On 09/12/17 23:36, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> You proposed changes after three years of an *upstream* default, when
> Arch is a distro designed around the philosophy of packaging *upstream*
> code, and when the appropriate response is to either:
> 1) Convince upstream their default sucks. Because the default does
> indeed suck,
> 2) Spread the word to all and sundry, that the default sucks, hopefully
> eventually the procps-ng maintainers will realize there is nothing
> "modern" about this.
> 3) Come to the sneaking realization that, yes, top sucks, but not just
> because of this -- and ditch top for htop. Because top sucks, and
> --disable-modern-top will not fix that.

If there's a single configure flag (as already used by two large distros
and derivatives) that makes `top` suck "less" surely that's also an
option - especially if the default is _known_ to suck and the upstream
project did it on purpose.

Yes - they changed the default to try and force people to read the
documentation. Most people just switched to `htop` instead [citation

> We're generally fine with "I'm not a Dev", where do you think TUs
> eventually come from? People who contribute with ideas, help,
> infrastructure suggestions, etc. Griping about a rather obviously
> subjective *policy* decision is not, however, a "change", it's a
> political request that assumes everyone agrees with you about how top
> "should" look (and clearly some people like it, or even upstream
> wouldn't support it).

I submitted, what I thought, was a reasonably structured and detailed
proposal to change one flag in a PKGBUILD file which would have few (if
any) side effects.

The whole point of a proposal is to drive a discussion; there is no
assumption it is absolutely correct. I don't see that as "griping". If
I'd just said "top sucks, you should fix it", then fine - but I didn't
do that.

> Mind you, we didn't realize you were a Manjaro user. 

I assumed my email address might be a giveaway.

> So you have another option too -- ask Manjaro to override our package with their own, since
> naturally Manjaro as a "value-added Arch derivative for beginners" would
> want to validate their existence by, well, adding value for beginners.

I've already released an updated package (as per link [5] in my OP). As
I said somewhere else (maybe on the Arch forum?), if raising changes
"upstream" can benefit the whole ecosystem it's worth doing.

I'd probably dispute the "for beginners" bit though... ;) Plus, we
really don't need to validate our existence, thank you.


More information about the arch-general mailing list