Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch-based distributions"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Trademark infringements: update + unsigned)
(Opine on Alpine, ask about ArchLabs)
 
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
:::I'll leave the discussion open for a third opinion... -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 
:::I'll leave the discussion open for a third opinion... -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::As a drive-by visitor, I find the inclusion of Alpine pretty confusing. The package definition may be inspired, but as [[User:Head on a Stick|Head on a Stick]] notes, there is no derivative code. [[User:Clacke|clacke]] ([[User talk:Clacke|talk]]) 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 +
 +
== ArchLabs ==
 +
 +
Is there a particular reason, like the above-mentioned trademark issues regarding other distros, why ArchLabs [https://archlabsblog.wordpress.com/|ArchLabs] isn't in the list? Or has it just not been updated since the distro appeared? [[User:Clacke|clacke]] ([[User talk:Clacke|talk]]) 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:43, 4 October 2017

Trademark infringements

I've removed the following projects from this article since they appear to misuse the Arch Linux trademark:

  • ArchBang
  • Arch Anywhere update: [1]
  • Artix Linux
  • Happy Hacking Linux

See [2] for the email I've sent on this regard to trademarks@archlinux.org. If I get a response that said distributions have authorization to use the Arch Linux trademark, they can be readded to this article. -- Alad (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Artix Linux[3] has now changed its tag-line from "Your Arch, your init" to "Your GNU/Linux, your init", and so, is no longer in violation of the TrademarkPolicy. The entry has been added back. —This unsigned comment is by Drumal (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2017‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Thank you. -- Alad (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Alpine Linux

Why did you undo my edit Alad?

Head on a Stick (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

[4] which was linked in that BBS thread... the "part" in this case is APKBUILD and related tools, which are a near-copy of PKGBUILD except adapted for the (a)sh shell. -- Alad (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Whilst it may be true that the `abuild` script used to convert APKBUILDs to .apk packages is based on `makepkg` (the script describes itself as a "light version of makepkg"), I do not think this justifies Alpine's place on this list — no parts of pacman (or libalpm(3)) are used in the packaging system and Alpine itself is compiled using Gentoo's portage system. Head on a Stick (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave the discussion open for a third opinion... -- Alad (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As a drive-by visitor, I find the inclusion of Alpine pretty confusing. The package definition may be inspired, but as Head on a Stick notes, there is no derivative code. clacke (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

ArchLabs

Is there a particular reason, like the above-mentioned trademark issues regarding other distros, why ArchLabs [5] isn't in the list? Or has it just not been updated since the distro appeared? clacke (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)