Curious about arch repository policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2
Hello...

I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
between extra and community repo.

Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?

Also, some critical GNOME specific packages are part of the community
repo. Even, some compilers, like Haskell is also part of the community
repo. What is the exact difference between extra and community
repository?

I wonder, Is it really important to have that split?
 --
Sudarshan Kakoty <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2
2018年3月27日(火) 23:57 Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general <
[hidden email]>:

> Hello...
>
> I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
> between extra and community repo.
>
> Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
> is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
> dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?
>
> Also, some critical GNOME specific packages are part of the community
> repo. Even, some compilers, like Haskell is also part of the community
> repo. What is the exact difference between extra and community
> repository?
>
> I wonder, Is it really important to have that split?
>  --
> Sudarshan Kakoty <[hidden email]>
>

simply saying.
community is TU managed repo; mostly from AUR by vote.
extra is higher than that.

>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

Jelle van der Waa-2
On 03/27/18 at 03:13pm, Dragon ryu via arch-general wrote:

> 2018年3月27日(火) 23:57 Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello...
> >
> > I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
> > between extra and community repo.
> >
> > Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
> > is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
> > dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?
> >
> > Also, some critical GNOME specific packages are part of the community
> > repo. Even, some compilers, like Haskell is also part of the community
> > repo. What is the exact difference between extra and community
> > repository?
> >
> > I wonder, Is it really important to have that split?
> >  --
> > Sudarshan Kakoty <[hidden email]>
> >
>
> simply saying.
> community is TU managed repo; mostly from AUR by vote.
To be clear, votes don't matter for a package to be moved to
[community]. Some popular packages with many votes simply can't enter
the repository due to licensing or no interest of the TU's to maintain
it.

--
Jelle van der Waa

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2
In reply to this post by arch general mailing list-2
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:27:16PM +0530, Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general wrote:
> Hello...
>
> I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
> between extra and community repo.
>
> Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
> is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
> dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?

A more important question is why meson and ninja are not in [core] and base
group given that they are build-dependencies of systemd?

Cheers,
L.
--
Leonid Isaev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2


On 27/03/18 20:34, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:27:16PM +0530, Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general wrote:
>> Hello...
>>
>> I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
>> between extra and community repo.
>>
>> Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
>> is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
>> dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?
> A more important question is why meson and ninja are not in [core] and base
> group given that they are build-dependencies of systemd?
>
> Cheers,
> L.
Probably because they're only make depends like you said. So in a user's
system make depends are not needed to install packages nor do they
provide any use.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:39:30PM +0100, morganamilo via arch-general wrote:

>
>
> On 27/03/18 20:34, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:27:16PM +0530, Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general wrote:
> > > Hello...
> > >
> > > I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
> > > between extra and community repo.
> > >
> > > Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
> > > is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
> > > dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?
> > A more important question is why meson and ninja are not in [core] and base
> > group given that they are build-dependencies of systemd?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > L.
> Probably because they're only make depends like you said. So in a user's
> system make depends are not needed to install packages nor do they provide
> any use.

But I thought [core] was supposed to be self-contained, or it only used to be?

Cheers,
--
Leonid Isaev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

arch general mailing list-2


On 27/03/18 21:13, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:39:30PM +0100, morganamilo via arch-general wrote:
>>
>> On 27/03/18 20:34, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:27:16PM +0530, Sudarshan Kakoty via arch-general wrote:
>>>> Hello...
>>>>
>>>> I was reading "Arch Wiki" and felt curious about that difference
>>>> between extra and community repo.
>>>>
>>>> Some packages, such as "meson" is in the "extra" repo, whereas "ninja"
>>>> is in "community" repo. The interesting fact is that -  is an implicit
>>>> dependency to "meson". So why that is (ninja) in the community repo?
>>> A more important question is why meson and ninja are not in [core] and base
>>> group given that they are build-dependencies of systemd?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> L.
>> Probably because they're only make depends like you said. So in a user's
>> system make depends are not needed to install packages nor do they provide
>> any use.
> But I thought [core] was supposed to be self-contained, or it only used to be?
>
> Cheers,.
 From a user's perspectvie they are self contained. Arch is a binary
distro, the user does not need to mess with make depends.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Curious about arch repository policy

Bardur Arantsson
In reply to this post by arch general mailing list-2
On 2018-03-27 22:13, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
>
> But I thought [core] was supposed to be self-contained, or it only used to be?
>

Not sure about the history here, but given the fact that most systems
are bootstrapped from e.g. a cross-compiler, I don't think there's any
real system that's self-contained these days.

(That's not to say that it doesn't matter *at all* what's required, but
it makes a lot of sense to separate "build system" dependencies from the
runtime dependencies.)

Cheers,