> While Antergos is indeed a separate distribution (but very close to
> raw Arch), the Archtect Arch Installer and Arch-Anywhere are not
> distributions, they are just installers for Arch.

So to give you some background why you get the hostility, here's some
things I've experienced from the frontlines of Arch Linux support (I am
vodik on #archlinux irc channel).

Here's the thing with installers - what did they install? I don't mean
in a rough sense, like it installed Gnome or whatnot, I mean in
*detail*. The devil is in the detail. With so many possible combinations
of packages to get a working desktop, its important to know what was
installed, what came from official repos, what might have come from

Now the bridge with derivatives and installers was burned by some of the
earlier (and I think mostly now defunct) derivatives. You had distros
claiming to be Arch, nothing more than an installed, but installing
packages from AUR by default. What did that mean? Tons of technical
support questions asking why package foo broke on upgrade. Why did pkg
foo break? Because it never was in the official repos and therefore
sitting unmaintained on user's machines. And the user **didn't know**.

I'm all for taking advantage of the AUR, but it should be informed
decision, not something someone makes for you (and we don't even
officially support the AUR to boot).

The most pointed example was ArchBang (I think) shipping cairo-ubuntu
from AUR by default. After a particular cario update where every other
package that depended on cario had to be rebuild, ArchBang installs
broke, because it was stuck on the old version. Why was this a support
nightmare? Because so many users jumped into #archlinux, complaining
about their broken Arch Linux install, and it wasn't our fault. Because
those users **didn't know** that package was on their system, not
getting updates, and didn't realize it wasn't our fault. And because
they didn't know, it was bigger a struggle to initially debug.

> And I do believe there are quite a few friendly, helpful people in the
> Arch community that will be happy to help, without questioning the
> pedigree of the user's installation.

Its not a matter of pedigree, its a matter of having informed users.

If your users are aware of every detail the installer performs, and
that this installer doesn't do anything funny or anything outside of
official packages, your users will be fine getting Arch Linux support.
Nobody will be the wiser - but that's the important detail.

But we do have to make it clear that we won't **officially** support
anything installed outside of the officially sanctions instructions. I
don't see that as unreasonable.

Reply via email to