Difference between revisions of "Talk:Improving performance/Boot process"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Readahead on AUR: reopen + re)
(Readahead on AUR: re)
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 
::::Well, Alad, I think that was too hasty because the [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2015-March/005380.html second request] is still pending... -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::::Well, Alad, I think that was too hasty because the [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2015-March/005380.html second request] is still pending... -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::::So the package was deleted, then uploaded right after? OP: Did you at least contact the TU in question before doing so? :/ -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 6 March 2015

Readahead on AUR

Quoting from a Gentoo developer (https://dev.gentoo.org/~pacho/systemd-readahead.html):

Systemd upstream decided to drop readahead since 217 version [1,2] even if no many alternatives for HDD users apart of migrating to SSD exist [3], because of that, this aims to keep supplying the readahead systemd implementation for now until a better alternative exists.
  1. readahead: wipe out readahead
  2. remove references of readahead
  3. [systemd-devel] [HEADS-UP] Intent to remove readahead from systemd

As usual, if you want to help, provide patches and so feel free to open a bug report to bugs.gentoo.org. The same if you want to report a bug of course ;)

So, please, stop messing around. Until something better appears this is the best alternative around that actually works.

It's not confusing, it was there, made the boot-up faster, was removed and now it can be seamlessly added back, optionally and without fuss.

Where's the problem?

--Swyter (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If this "project" was a fork of systemd-readahead, then it would have provided a modified or at least repackaged sources of the original software, apply patches, bug fixes etc. The package systemd-readaheadAUR in the AUR just builds systemd-216 with everything disabled but readahead, which is conflicting with the very definition of fork. This is what's wrong with your AUR package.
The quoted Gentoo page itself does not provide any link to sources, only encourages to report bugs to bugs.gentoo.org. Surely the patches are not mysteriously applied to the already-released systemd-v16 source tarball. This is what's wrong with the "project".
Also, forks are usually renamed to distinguish itself from the original software and to direct bug reports and complaints to the right place. The name systemd-readahead is still connected to the implementation of readahead that was removed in systemd-v217, which makes it totally bad name for a fork.
Until these problems are addressed, I'm against describing this "project" on ArchWiki. Likewise, there are Trusted Users who are against having systemd-readaheadAUR in the AUR (my previous report was accepted).
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't follow.
There's no rule that enforces having to fork a project to package it. It's been clearly explained in the AUR package description, it just adds back the official readahead implementation. There's packages for other distros, I needed and I ported it to Arch spending my time on it, I wanted to share because it offered the choice of having it back, customization is a cornerstone of the Arch way. How can this confuse users or be misleading? And please, it's just *you* abusing your position and wanting to delete the package, it does no good.
The package is well written and has received four votes already, so people clearly use and like it. Stop antagonizing this project.
The time wasted with this could be used to manage deprecated packages that are truly useless. This is not.
--Swyter (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss here, the deletion request was already accepted. One small but important detail is how anyone can file a deletion request, regardless of "position". If either party has further comments, use email. Section removed, closing. -- Alad (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Alad, I think that was too hasty because the second request is still pending... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So the package was deleted, then uploaded right after? OP: Did you at least contact the TU in question before doing so? :/ -- Alad (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)