[aur-general] Why keeping OpenRC related packages on AUR?
fredbezies at gmail.com
Mon Sep 16 16:38:03 UTC 2019
Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 18:27, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
<aur-general at archlinux.org> a écrit :
> 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
> > PKGBUILDs.
> > 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
Note: I forgot to set my options to receive every single message, so
I'll be answering everybody here.
> 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 Is it flagged out of date?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". :)
Or could not, as these are git packages :D
> Only two of the openrc-related packages are flagged out of date for any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.
Well, I was just looking at packages in AUR.
> > 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.
I did not know. I apologize.
> 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.
Ok. I just wanted to get such an explanation. Nothing more.
> > 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.
Indeed! I just remember some manjaro related packages to be deleted
because they were using manjaro dependencies in some ways.
> 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.
Core access is restricted to developers only, if I'm right.
> > 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).
Well, it is obvious.
> 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.
Some projects are directly based on these technologies, providing
their own repository. I thought it was simpler to use directly ISO
from these projects.
> 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 won't ask any support for any of these distributions, even if I'm
using one of them on my old laptop.
I'm a 10 years long Archlinux user, who had known Archlinux 0.7x
ISO... Good old /etc/rc.conf times... Or not!
> 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.
I just wanted to be sure why they were on AUR. Nothing less, nothing
more. No tricky plans!
Thanks a lot for your long answer.
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
fredbezies at gmail.com
More information about the aur-general