Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:19 UTC
Linux "Many Linux distributions have taken the path of easy GUI-based installation, in order to appeal to a broader mix of users. But not Arch Linux, which emphasises simplicity of technical complexity over general usability. Richard Hillesley explains."
Thread beginning with comment 489918
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I suspected that it is fixed now (I didn't bother to check) ... but it shouldn't have got like that in the first place. Alarm bells should have been going off in that guys head when he was packaging it.

That's partly a result of not compiling the binaries yourself (you'd get similar issues with RPMs and Deb packages too). The solution is to compile your own source, but not everyone has the time, expertise nor motivation to do so.

Plus RPMs come with a whole boatload of other issues on top. So Pacman's only real rival is Debian's apt-get. Personally I prefer Pacman, but each to their own.

As for AUR, Yaourt is an awesome tool. It's the only thing I prefer to FreeBSD's ports for source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:

You are missing my point ...

Having something which is clearly not even related (Basically similar to partition magic) as a dependency is a poor show.

I am no expert at the GTK-QT engine or whatever it is ... but I common sense must tell you that including GParted is just wrong.

So you have this wonderful pacman tool, with people misusing it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

I've seen packages with bad requirements from Arch, Gentoo, and Fedora. It happens from time to time with bleeding edge distros. Things get fixed eventually. That being said, I don't think I had a bad one when I was running debian, open suse, or slackware.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Valhalla Member since:

Having something which is clearly not even related (Basically similar to partition magic) as a dependency is a poor show.

Yes that particular packager had a 'poor show', not the package manager as you implied.

From my own experience as a long time user of Arch, I sometimes see packages which I personally find poorly packaged (which is easily spotted since all dependencies are listed when you are about to install a package).

But this is a debate between community and packager, and at the end of the day I can easily rebuild any package using abs (ports style) with the dependencies (and optimization settings) I prefer.

And if I'm too lazy for that then there's a huge chance someone else has done it and put it up as an AUR (Arch User Repository) package.

Reply Parent Score: 3