[pacman-dev] My $0.02 on the Frugalware v.s. Arch bit...

Alex Smith alex at alex-smith.me.uk
Wed Dec 27 16:14:24 EST 2006

Scott Horowitz wrote:
> I hate to wade into this, but let me just say... there's no doubt in
> my mind that this will never be resolved while the (inflammatory)
> sentiment in the pacman-g2 README exists.
> For starters, the whole point being made about the API not being
> stable, which seems to be points 1 and 2 in the README, are plain
> silly. No project should take a project's cvs development code and
> expect the API to remain stable; Frugalware knew what it was getting
> into when it grabbed this code to put into their repositories. There's
> a reason that pacman3 hasn't been released yet on Archlinux, and that
> there haven't been Archlinux frontends developed. Pacman3 development
> shouldn't be hindered because someone decided to release the code into
> the wild, and it's clearly going under some large refactoring.

Yes, I can agree with that.

> As for point 3, Aaron's supposed disinterest in contributor's patches
> - I think it has been quite clear from the mailing list that this
> isn't the case. The real justification behind this sentiment, which
> was brought up in the original email and I agree needs improvement, is
> that there could use more openness (such as in response to a WONTFIX
> patch) between all the parties.
> Then there's the stuff about how development has fallen behind
> schedule (what project hasn't?) and Aaron asked Frugalware to fork
> things (I'm pretty sure this was more tongue-in-cheeck about how
> Frugalware is doing things than anything). These seem pretty petty to
> me.

Very petty.

> In my opinion, two things need to happen, one from each side. On the
> Archlinux side, I think Aaron should make a better attempt to be more
> transparent in his responses, which would hopefully encourage debate.
> On the Frugalware side, I think the whining about API stability needs
> to be dropped and, rather than take the "fork" talk as a challenge,
> they should be asking what needs to be done to make the two paths more
> compatible.

There shouldn't even be two paths in my opinion.

> Happy Holidays,
> Scott


Alex Smith
Frugalware Linux developer - http://www.frugalware.org

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list