User talk:Doru001/Pacman - An Introduction

From ArchWiki
< User talk:Doru001
Revision as of 19:55, 20 August 2015 by Alad (talk | contribs) (Rolling release terms: rm gap)
Jump to: navigation, search

Rolling release terms

When I started with arch linux I was disappointed by the lack of a friendly introduction to pacman. As a result, I began to complete the wiki on pacman with these simple statements which can help a beginner to find his way. They have been readily removed from there, because they were for beginners. We came to a compromise, and I wrote this page, which I wish I could find easily myself when I started using pacman.

There is no explanation on the fundamental "rolling archive" concept in the main Pacman article or in the pacman manual. I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but it renders the arch package management system incomprehensible to a newcomer. The words "rolling" and "archive" do not even appear in the pacman manual. The first "hint" on the wiki page is found in paragraph 2.3 (close to the end), which mysteriously mentions "the nature of Arch's rolling release approach". You have been warned. The wiki page begins with a long introduction about pacman configuration, which I still did not need until today, after years of usage.

The discussion which led to this compromise of course has been deleted.

My introductory article of course is not mentioned in the list of related articles on Pacman page.

And now of course you want to delete it all, because it doubles the main Pacman page.

In my opinion, when one presents geometry, it begins with assumptions like "two different points determine a straight line". It is for beginners, and that is the precise reason why it should stand at the beginning of the presentation. And when something is more complicated, it is emphasized, not overlooked. The consequences of using -Syyuu are still unclear to me today. Doru001 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

After a discussion was closed, it is deleted three days after for maintenance purposes, not censorship. See Help:Discussion. Nothing prevents you from opening a new one (or even restore the old one from history).
As to "rolling release", this term is explained on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Rolling release. There is an iniative to merge the defining points of Arch (including "Rolling release") in one article; feel free to voice your opinion in Talk:The Arch Way.
If the pacman article structure is unclear, then improve the article, not a separately maintained duplicate. -- Alad (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't continue a discussion forever. Go to history, and if you have new arguments, recover the history and answer.
The rolling release should be the first paragraph in pacman. If you want to use an external reference, that is great, but it should be very visible, because any newcomer comes to pacman wiki to understand the manual.
The structure of pacman is as it is as a result of the fact that experienced users won the argument against beginners like me. They were not interested in clarity or logic, but in some details which they knew less. There was a danger of an editing war, and I just backed down. Doru001 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
> The rolling release should be the first paragraph in pacman.
No, it shouldn't. See my answer below, this belongs at most to Official repositories. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It should, because the way pacman functions can not be understood or even explained without knowing the way the repository is maintained. The statements about pacman do not make sense unless you know how the repository is maintained. The pacman page has no meaning unless you know how the repository is maintained. So you should mention at the beginning how the repository is or could be maintained. And you should discuss the strange possible consequences of the way the repository is maintained. People should know that before they use pacman. A system can become inconsistent if you just install one package without updating the whole system. And the structure of the page should be logical, it should explain how pacman works: install, remove, list packages. The config should come last. And the link to my page should be removed after we discuss it. Doru001 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that you can notice that there is some intimate relation between pacman and the arch repository. The pacman page is not there to describe pacman alone, but to help people to learn fast and easy how to use pacman on arch. This explanation has sense only by describing the interaction between pacman and the arch repository. pacman alone has no meaning - it is just meaningless code. When you explain how something works you need to explain how does it interact with other things around it. And you should emphasize relevant information, like the danger of using pacman -Sy firefox instead of pacman -Syu firefox. The article hides this after screens of configuration and before screens of troubleshooting. And it does not explain it. Of course the way pacman actually works is explained somewhere on the Internet, but I believe that it should be explained here. For example, basic things like how to install, remove, or list packages. Doru001 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Explaining geometry or anything to beginners/students is usually done by presenting from a textbook, which is a monolithic compilation of (sub)topics related to the main topic, with very few links to other resources. This is not what ArchWiki tries to be, there are few pages of the "monolithic compilation" style, and more importantly, the pages (corresponding to e.g. chapters of the textbook) are not ordered. Instead, there are many links to other pages and external resources when it is necessary to reference other topic.
The pacman page is about pacman, nothing else. The role of Arch's official repositories is described in a separate article, as well as the meaning of "rolling release" concept and other core principles -- these are described in The Arch Way and Arch Linux, both linked from the Main page. I think you agree that we can't link these two from the "Related articles" box of every other page on the ArchWiki.
Further, the "rolling release" model is not relevant for the description of a package manager, it can be implemented using any package manager (see this list), and reversely, pacman can be used in non-rolling distributions (e.g. LinHES). Moreover, it seems that the "rolling archive" term was made up by yourself (otherwise please share a reference).
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the information is no longer monolithic is very good. The fact that the logic is no longer maintained, and you can't see why the concept of "rolling archive" should be referenced from the pacman wiki page, is very bad. Doru001 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not explained on The Arch Way or Arch Linux. It is explained here. There there are some vague comments which have nothing to do with the "rolling nature" of arch repositories. Not to mention its strange consequences, which should be discussed. Also, no beginner in trouble when he wants to use pacman will go to those pages, or even to the main page. He will go to Pacman. Doru001 (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I never ever could possibly invent terminology like "rolling archive". In fact, "rolling" is used on the pacman page, and arch comes from archive. I simply do not speak English well enough, and I just did not know what hit me when I moved to arch, to imagine such phrases. And I was not alone. People using arch for years were in trouble, with dysfunctional systems, because of this. I believe that I found it somewhere in bbs. In fact, I remember that I posted a lot on forums to understand what I wrote here, but I can't find those discussions now. Anyway, probably back then the terminology was not established, and I was prevented from defining it on the pacman page (but nobody contested it up to you), so today maybe some changes appeared, and it is a good idea to blame the lack of clarity on me ... :) Doru001 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that you can find it here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=156947 rolling nature of the arch archive -> rolling archive.
The "rolling nature of the arch archive" occurs only in your post. The term repository is not synonymous to "archive", although certain repositories such as CPAN act as such. Arch repositories are certainly not an archive, there is only the latest version of a package in a repository. On the other hand, there is also the Archive, but it is unrelated to "rolling [release]" (and it is an unofficial project).
If you want this discussion to get somewhere, let's start from the beginning. So far you've only indicated that there is something missing, because you (or others who "used Arch for years") had some problems some time ago, but don't remember when or where you (or the others) posted about it. This post from the only thread you provided us indicates that everything is in order with respect to the two-year-old "problem".
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that you have a better name for "rolling archive" but you keep it secret.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pacman&oldid=247025
You should read back from there because the discussion was long.
Doru001 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)