Now that the TUR's are being phased out, Arch doesnt really have that many repos.
Release Current Extra Testing Unstable Community They all have their purposes and I cant really see us losing any of them in the near future, except *maybe* release. As for keeping the OS and the system seperate, what more can we do? we have the kernel package, how much more seperate can we make it than that? Core packages are contained in current. Any packages outside the core ones, are contained in extra. Packages that are being tested before being moved to extra/current are in testing. Packages that are known to be unstable and are not candidates to move are in unstable. And community is just... packages that are adopted from the AUR and managed by TUs. I cant see any need for any more seperation than that, nor a need to drop the amount of repos -- there arent even that many. iphitus On 8/1/05, Christer Solskogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:47:33 -0500 > Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I love when people say "I've been using arch for a week and it's cool, > > but can you change *this*, *this*, and *this*?" > > > > I know what you mean. But in this case I want to contribute too. > > > Even better is when people say "let's do this like FreeBSD, and this > > like FreeBSD, and this too" - why not use FreeBSD? > > > > Personally I want arch to do things a bit more like FreeBSD becuse I > use FreeBSD, and I like the way they solve things. But with that said, > I dont think they do it right all the way. Therefore I want to suggest > how *I* think would be best. What I think is best, does not mean > everybody else feels the same way. > > > The fact of the matter is that everyone who's been using arch for over > > a few months is using it because they're happy with it... > > > > That is correct. > > > Suggesting changes like this, which frankly won't make one bit of > > difference (hey, bash is now in the [base] repo instead of [current] - > > woohoo) is counterproductive > > > > I should probably tell why I think that. > FreeBSD is a OS, and not just a kernel like linux. FreeBSD`s base is > just a compliation of both BSD programs (and libs) and GNU program and > libs. Without ports FreeBSD is almost useless. > I want it that way so people can easely see the difference between the > *OS* and "3rd party" applications and libraries. > What i tried to tell (but didnt) is to keep the number of reposteries > at a minimum. > > note: > I like Arch, but it is not perfect (what is?) - I want to tell what *I* > think is the best, and there is no objective way to tell it. I also > want to help making the changes, not just tell what and what not to do. > What else can I do? It seems pretty useless to fork Arch. > I want comments for my views, and I`m grateful for your comments. > > -- > cso > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > -- iphitus - www.iphitus.tk _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
