[pacman-dev] My $0.02 on the Frugalware v.s. Arch bit...
aarcane at gmail.com
Sun Dec 31 19:46:20 EST 2006
admittedly I don't know all the details behind the fork, however, from
what I've read, it seems completely pointless. I think there needs to
be some more cooperation all around. it would be best for everyone,
especially the users.
On 12/27/06, Alex Smith <alex at alex-smith.me.uk> wrote:
> 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
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev at archlinux.org
More information about the pacman-dev