On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]> wrote: > In my understanding, the Arch Way implies that there shouldn't be > hundreds of versions with different patches or compilation options in > the repositories, but only a single package that provides a working > environment with sane defaults and as little patching as possible. > Users, who would like to have some feature enabled/disabled, can use the > ABS to build modified packages and can upload such modified packages to > the AUR if they want to share them. I share this point of view!
> Of course, there are exceptions. boinc-nox and emacs-nox are probably in > the repos because there's a large number of users that don't need X > support and building customized packages takes a while (just a guess). In my opinion mtr-cli _is_ like emacs-nox. it drops X (gtk) support, to a tool which is more used in a term on host without X. But question is about popularity. Emacs and mtr are not comparable. The point that I defend is : mtr-cli is an important network tools which should be used without X. > So if there's a good reason to include mtr-cli as well, I don't have any > objections. > > 's alright then. Just wondered as it was in the list of packages you'd > like to include in [community] :) Yes... my list was build too long time ago, actualy, the first time I thought of becoming TU. My apologies. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
