Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 18:27, Eli Schwartz via aur-general <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On 9/16/19 10:38 AM, fredbezies via aur-general wrote: > > Hello. > > > > Note: posting in the right mailing list now. Oops! > > > > I hope it is the right place to discuss about this issue. I noticed > > there is a lot of OpenRC related packages on AUR. I don't want to > > start a flamewar, I just want to know what is going on with these > > PKGBUILDs. > > > > A quick search gave me 42 answers - some not related to this init > > system - 95% of them last updated between 2015 and 2018. > > > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=openrc
Note: I forgot to set my options to receive every single message, so I'll be answering everybody here. > > openrc-git and openrc-arch-services-git are, in fact, git packages, so > it doesn't matter if they haven't been updated since 2015. > openrc-sysvinit is hardly receiving daily updates, so likewise it's > entirely reasonable to be an old package. Ok. https://download.ghostbsd.org/releases/amd64/latest/GhostBSD19.09.iso > > Is it flagged out of date? No? I think we call that "stable software > that works". :) Or could not, as these are git packages :D > > Only two of the openrc-related packages are flagged out of date for any > significant time. Feel free to request something be done about > strongswan-nosystemd and docker-openrc-scripts-git. > Well, I was just looking at packages in AUR. > > Is there any interest of keeping these PKGBUILDs? There is an official > > Archlinux + OpenRC init system called Artix, providing a migration > > guide from Arch or Manjaro. > > One of the core archlinux developers is the maintainer of openrc and > openrc-sysvinit (and openrc-git). One assumes this is not against the rules. > https://www.archlinux.org/people/developers/#andrew I did not know. I apologize. > > As for "interest", the AUR is not in the business of determining whether > there is "interest" in a package. Our submission guidelines state that > packages must be useful enough that other users *may* be interested in > it, a criterion that is graded on good faith. Well, openrc is obviously > useful enough for other distributions to base themselves on it, so it is > clearly not software that is specific to one person that cannot be > feasibly expected to be used by others. Ok. I just wanted to get such an explanation. Nothing more. > > > It is also listed in > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch-based_distributions#Active > > > > "Artix Linux *2016, previously Arch-OpenRC" > > > > https://artixlinux.org/ > > https://wiki.artixlinux.org/Main/Migration > > Artix Linux may be based on Arch with openrc, but Manjaro Linux is based > on Arch with systemd. Does that mean that it is forbidden for Arch users > to use systemd, because it is also used by a derivative? No, that would > be an extremely foolish idea. Indeed! I just remember some manjaro related packages to be deleted because they were using manjaro dependencies in some ways. > > No one cares if another distribution uses something. We only care if > Arch Linux could potentially use it. If so, it is useful. Ok. > > Arch Linux is a distribution that people make into what they want it to > be. This stuff is definitely useful to at least some people. We will not > play politics and tell people that they're not allowed to publicly > experiment with different init systems -- we will simply refrain from > pushing that into [core], and expect them to make a good-faith effort in > the forums to alert people regarding their unique configurations. Core access is restricted to developers only, if I'm right. > > > By the way, it is written in the wiki that : "Warning: Arch Linux only > > has official support for systemd. When using OpenRC, please mention so > > in support requests." > > > > Source: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC > > > > Is there any explanations for keeping them? > > > > Thanks for your answers. > > So, the wiki explicitly clarifies that one is permitted to use openrc > and if you do use openrc you are still eligible to receive help in the > official support forums (as long as you let people know you are using it). > Well, it is obvious. > The context of this is that if you install Arch Linux according to the > Arch Way, then you are running Arch Linux... even if you later go ahead > and install a custom kernel, or systemd-git. It is really no different > if you go ahead and install linux-libre, openrc, and whatever other > special interests packages you want to replace core system components. Some projects are directly based on these technologies, providing their own repository. I thought it was simpler to use directly ISO from these projects. > What matters is that you built up your system from Arch Linux, and any > deviations from the official Arch Linux repositories are achieved by > your own labor, which you understand. (Do not try to use this as an > excuse to get support for Manjaro, Artix, or Parabola, you will get banned.) I won't ask any support for any of these distributions, even if I'm using one of them on my old laptop. I'm a 10 years long Archlinux user, who had known Archlinux 0.7x ISO... Good old /etc/rc.conf times... Or not! > > I am therefore unsure why you think we need an "explanation" for keeping > them, as though it is some sort of dirty secret and we need to air the > laundry and demand explanations from the "guilty parties" via some form > of mob-with-pitchfork mentality. I just wanted to be sure why they were on AUR. Nothing less, nothing more. No tricky plans! Thanks a lot for your long answer. > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > -- Frederic Bezies [email protected]
