[pacman-dev] [arch-dev-public] Pacman Architecture option (was: [signoff] pacman 3.4.0-2)

[Dan McGee]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 22.06.2010 17:42, schrieb Dan McGee:
>> This is the last thing I will say on this. Where the heck were you
>> guys 11 months ago? Surely not following development, but you want to
>> piss about it now.
>>
>> Discussion:
>> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008965.html
>> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008968.html
>> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-July/008970.html
>>
>> Patches (with no feedback, mind you):
>> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-August/009193.html
>
> I do read pacman-dev on occasion, but not regularly, and I don't follow
> each patch thread or new feature. I heard that the Architecture option
> was coming, but was never too concerned with the details (just random
> happiness about it) - I didn't even know it would be an option, but
> thought it was just default behaviour.
> I even discussed the issue with Xavier I think, maybe it was Allan, it's
> too long ago.
>
> If you read my emails, you will see that I did not complain a single
> time, but rather wanted to know what the reasoning behind this decision
> was (which I'd still like to know btw).

OK, I lied about no more replies becuase I did forget to put this in
my original email- the primary driving reason from my point of view is
"If you do nothing, nothing changes". e.g. for anyone not adding this
to their pacman.conf, they won't have to worry about this feature
getting in the way.

With that said, I do realize this would not inhibet most people to be
turned on by default, but I think we saw this as a precautionary
measure rather than something we should force on people. I've CC-ed to
pacman-dev; if I end up being in the minority on this then I'll take a
patch to make the default be "auto" (and we will then need to add an
explicit "none" option and document it).

> And while I think that this should be changed to the way I suggested
> (which would be a trivial change), for the reasons I posted, I can live
> with it either way.