Talk:Arch-based distributions

IRC links

We don't need to link to irc, forums, social media or other pages for projects. The project homepage should have links to all of those things. The only thing having multiple links per project does is increase their SEO. Meskarune (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I can be wrong but MediaWiki, that is the software which runs this wiki, doesn't increase SEO of external links by default. It works on Wikipedia, which is built upon MediaWiki so I think it works for ArchWiki too. Even if I'm wrong I think that multiple links is a good idea to ease users' life --Airon90 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This page isn't meant to "ease user's life". It's a courtesy towards DeveloperWiki:TrademarkPolicy, and should only include the bare minimum to show the existence of derivates. -- Alad (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced most links with links to sourceforge. This reduces the effect of marketing, and allows simpler maintenance as the last release is directly visible. -- Alad (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

KaOS, Chakra and Frugalware are independent

All these 3 distros are independent, if Arch would disappear from one day to the other, means this no trouble for them. The only thing, which connects them to Arch is, in the case of Chakra and KaOS, Pacman.

So is Arch Debian based, since it use sudo?

Frugalware is fully independent, not a single connection to Arch and Chakra WAS Arch based, many years ago.

—This unsigned comment is by ShalokShalom (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Chakra is Arch-based the same way Linux Mint is based on Debian. We're not separating based on whether the distributions need Arch repositories or whatever for their existence. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I was looking purely at the PKGBUILDs; by quick inspection, they are pretty much the same for Chakra and KaOS. Frugalware appears to have written their own PKGBUILDs.

I'd say that Chakra is a derivative based off things like [1], [2]; in general, their PKGBUILDs seem pretty similar to Arch's.

For KaOS, most of [3] looks like it was directly taken from Arch; presumably this is the same for the majority of the packages.

I guess Frugalware is counted because it uses a fork of pacman from long ago; is that enough? A quick look suggests that it is not really derived from Arch (packages are different, pacman != pacman-g2, ...).

-- Pypi (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the above, Chakra seems to be the only "derivate" which ever contributed back to Arch (respectively pacman) [4]. The choice of removing Chakra, Frugalware and KaOS over any of the distributions listed in Arch based distributions#Other is also arbitrary; things like Alpine (uses a packaging format similar to PKGBUILD) and MSYS2 (pacman fork and PKGBUILDs for an unsupported platform) have far more significant differences. Yet, all classify under "derived from Arch Linux either in whole or in part" which is mentioned at the very top of the article.

If anything, the "Other" header should be more discriptive. -- Alad (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there was some common code between pacman and pacman-g2, Arch was much more than just an inspiration for Frugalware, so I'd call it an Arch-based distribution. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Chakra WAS Arch based, they rebuild all from scratch some years ago. And Arch PKGBUILDs looks sometimes similar to that one from KaOS, because Arch use its PKGBUILDs, not vice versa.

"things like Alpine (uses a packaging format similar to PKGBUILD) and MSYS2 (pacman fork and PKGBUILDs for an unsupported platform) have far more significant differences."

So is Arch Debian based, since it use sudo? Arch KDE is based on Kubuntu, since Bluebox finance KDE?

ShalokShalom (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the word based is connected to the creation of the subject. It doesn't make sense to use past tense with it, since the future development of the subject, however diverging from the base it may be, can't change the foundation.

Sudo is hardly an essential part of any distribution, the same holds for desktop environments. The main factors for deciding if a distribution is based on Arch are package management and build system, which are the original features of Arch.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere, closing. ShalokShalom, I suggest you read the Code of conduct, in particular Code_of_conduct#Ineffective_discussion_.28.22bikeshed.22.29 before you make further edits to this wiki. -- Alad (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Corrected PacBSD Entry

I moved PacBSD from the Desktop list to the Other list as it doesn't provide a default desktop environment (installed is text based and default base install doesn't include Xorg, Window Managers, or Desktop Environments leaving it up to user choice similar to Arch Linux. -- Vendion (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Arch Hurd

It looks like Arch Hurd started back up in 2015/2016 should it be moved back to the active list? -- Vendion (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Their latest package upgrade is from 2013 [5] and their latest ISO from 2011 [6]. A simple "I'm alive" announce doesn't suffice, if it's not backed by actual updates. -- Alad (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)