[aur-general] Why keeping OpenRC related packages on AUR?

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Mon Sep 16 16:27:10 UTC 2019

On 9/16/19 10:38 AM, fredbezies via aur-general wrote:
> Hello.
> Note: posting in the right mailing list now. Oops!
> I hope it is the right place to discuss about this issue. I noticed
> there is a lot of OpenRC related packages on AUR. I don't want to
> start a flamewar, I just want to know what is going on with these
> A quick search gave me 42 answers - some not related to this init
> system - 95% of them last updated between 2015 and 2018.
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=openrc

openrc-git and openrc-arch-services-git are, in fact, git packages, so
it doesn't matter if they haven't been updated since 2015.
openrc-sysvinit is hardly receiving daily updates, so likewise it's
entirely reasonable to be an old package.

Is it flagged out of date? No? I think we call that "stable software
that works". :)

Only two of the openrc-related packages are flagged out of date for any
significant time. Feel free to request something be done about
strongswan-nosystemd and docker-openrc-scripts-git.

> Is there any interest of keeping these PKGBUILDs? There is an official
> Archlinux + OpenRC init system called Artix, providing a migration
> guide from Arch or Manjaro.

One of the core archlinux developers is the maintainer of openrc and
openrc-sysvinit (and openrc-git). One assumes this is not against the rules.

As for "interest", the AUR is not in the business of determining whether
there is "interest" in a package. Our submission guidelines state that
packages must be useful enough that other users *may* be interested in
it, a criterion that is graded on good faith. Well, openrc is obviously
useful enough for other distributions to base themselves on it, so it is
clearly not software that is specific to one person that cannot be
feasibly expected to be used by others.

> It is also listed in
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch-based_distributions#Active
> "Artix Linux *2016, previously Arch-OpenRC"
> https://artixlinux.org/
> https://wiki.artixlinux.org/Main/Migration

Artix Linux may be based on Arch with openrc, but Manjaro Linux is based
on Arch with systemd. Does that mean that it is forbidden for Arch users
to use systemd, because it is also used by a derivative? No, that would
be an extremely foolish idea.

No one cares if another distribution uses something. We only care if
Arch Linux could potentially use it. If so, it is useful.

Arch Linux is a distribution that people make into what they want it to
be. This stuff is definitely useful to at least some people. We will not
play politics and tell people that they're not allowed to publicly
experiment with different init systems -- we will simply refrain from
pushing that into [core], and expect them to make a good-faith effort in
the forums to alert people regarding their unique configurations.

> By the way, it is written in the wiki that : "Warning: Arch Linux only
> has official support for systemd. When using OpenRC, please mention so
> in support requests."
> Source: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC
> Is there any explanations for keeping them?
> Thanks for your answers.

So, the wiki explicitly clarifies that one is permitted to use openrc
and if you do use openrc you are still eligible to receive help in the
official support forums (as long as you let people know you are using it).

The context of this is that if you install Arch Linux according to the
Arch Way, then you are running Arch Linux... even if you later go ahead
and install a custom kernel, or systemd-git. It is really no different
if you go ahead and install linux-libre, openrc, and whatever other
special interests packages you want to replace core system components.
What matters is that you built up your system from Arch Linux, and any
deviations from the official Arch Linux repositories are achieved by
your own labor, which you understand. (Do not try to use this as an
excuse to get support for Manjaro, Artix, or Parabola, you will get banned.)

I am therefore unsure why you think we need an "explanation" for keeping
them, as though it is some sort of dirty secret and we need to air the
laundry and demand explanations from the "guilty parties" via some form
of mob-with-pitchfork mentality.

Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20190916/d6308c15/attachment.sig>

More information about the aur-general mailing list