2:25 a.m.
On 01/02/19 01:14, zlg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 09:20:52PM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote:
> Since we are no longer downstream of Alpine, we should really clean up
> the final references in our packages to Alpine. (I'd hate for a user of
> one of our packages to think they need to go to Alpine for help.)
>
> system/:
>
> * apk-tools
> Not sure what we could do here, except change the URL to be our URL and
> change the description to be "Package management software" or such.
Since Adélie has a plan to replace this, I'm not sure if it's better to
change the URL and description now -- and again once the fork/rewrite is
ready -- or to leave it be until the fork has materialized. Removing
references to Alpine here seems counter-intuitive until we properly fork
or rebuild it. If a user comes across bugs in apk-tools, how will Adélie
handle them prior to the rewrite? Are we patching issues as we come
across them and avoiding upstream for $reasons? If so, then perhaps
removing Alpine's name early can help us identify more flaws in
apk-tools (since users will be coming to us for help) and further inform
better design in the replacement.
There is no fork. It will hopefully be replaced some day by Parcel,
which is a completely different codebase; I wouldn't even classify it as
a rewrite. It has different features, different requirements, and is in
a different language. And since it is so different and requires a lot
of careful design and testing, it could be years down the line before it
would be implemented as the default package manager in Adélie. (I want
to make sure Parcel is solid before making such a fundamental change.)
However, I don't think our users need to be forced to interact with the
Alpine community, for a few reasons:
1) they are not always responsive and it may leave a bad taste in our
users' mouths;
2) some of the people there are not very nice or receptive to people who
are not willing to write / submit patches themselves;
3) our target demographic is quite different from theirs and needs
different things out of a package manager.
(These reasons are also all reasons Parcel is being written.)
Indeed, knowing what our users need would additionally be valuable.
> user/:
>
> * grub
> We need to completely rework how GRUB configuration works before 1.0.
> This is a mess and a nightmare for users.
Do we know the specific pain points or is it a general "this needs to be
better?" If we know where the pain points are, it can help guide the
fixing.
/etc/update-extlinux.conf does not even make sense from the filename
alone. We can either adopt a saner file format and name, or just use
the upstream default configuration method.
>
> * libcanberra
> Source is hosted on http: alpinelinux.org??? Surely this can't be right.
>
Nope, upstream is http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/libcanberra/
Yeah, I thought so.
Overall a good idea IMO. We're distinct from Alpine despite using
the
same PM, and even that is changing in the coming months/years.
Here's hoping for expediency.
Best,
--arw
--
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
https://www.adelielinux.org