Talk:Official repositories

From ArchWiki

Add context about package ecosystem

I recently had the content below reverted.

The justification was: "AUR does not belong to the description of *official* repositories"

It's unclear what the issue here is. Is the sentence ambiguous somehow? I'm not insinuating in any way that AUR is *official*, and surely the big red warning on top of the AUR page is sufficient to make that clear. People generally mention pacman and (whether through yay or paru) AUR in one breath, and collectively they do represent the Arch package ecosystem as described. I'm happy to rephrase it if the content is unclear. This context is valuable information to include here for people wanting to understand the state of Arch packaging at a glance. Einr (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted content

Combined with the AUR, Arch is proud to be home to one of the largest and most up-to-date package repository ecosystems in the Linux world.

This is why you should discuss in the Talk page before editing. Jasonwryan (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some improvements

Apparently, some users are confused of how to add new repositories. And indeed, there is no clear description of the process of adding and removing repos, neither as any mentions of pacman.conf(5) on the page.

There is inconsistency in the testing repos descriptions. Some have pacman.conf examples, some don't. I think we should provide examples for all. And there are weird contradictions:

core-testing is the only repository that can have name collisions with any of the other official repositories. If enabled, it has to be the first repository listed in your /etc/pacman.conf file.

The gnome-unstable entry should be first in the list of repositories (i.e., above the core-testing entry).

The kde-unstable entry should be first in the list of repositories (i.e., above the core-testing entry).

Every entry claims it should be the first, which may be very confusing.

Also this statement has factual inaccuracy, as other testing repos obviously can have collisions with respective stable repos too. And unstable repos can collide with everything.

Hanabishi (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one user was confused. I think there should be a single example, no need to repeat the same thing over and over.
The unstable repos are a special case, since they're not present in the default file at all.Scimmia (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does *-unstable need other testing repositories enabled

I assume the answer is yes, but I see the text silenced about it or not very clear. For instance:

  • Under Testing repositories section, there is a warning saying about enabling the other testing repositories by name, without mentioning the *-unstable:


  • If you enable core-testing, you must also enable extra-testing, and vice versa. If you enable any other testing repository listed in the following subsections, you must also enable both core-testing and extra-testing.
  • gnome-unstable section has this:
The gnome-unstable entry should be first in the list of repositories (i.e., above the core-testing entry).
  • kde-unstable section has this: (bold was set by me)
The kde-unstable entry should be first in the list of repositories (i.e., above the enabled core-testing entry; see warnings above).

So, kde-unstable states that core-testing needs to be enabled, gnome-unstable has no mention. Also, I believe this information needs to be more clear. These notes from gnome-unstable and kde-unstable are after a code block, which in my opinion obfuscates a little the info that core-testing needs to be enabled.

Suggestion: In the warning box from Testing repositories section, add another unnumbered list item saying: If you enable gnome-unstable or kde-unstable, you must also add core-testing. (and/or extra-testing, not sure if it is needed).

-- RafaelFF (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to revert my changes if you want, it was primarily due to kde-unstable getting more attention than usual due to people (like me) wanting to test Plasma 6, and that's been out of testing for a while YAOMTC (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YAOMTC, but I am starting to think your edit is correct regarding the need for having testing repository enabled. Not sure if it is missing extra-testing in your edit, though.
Take glib2 package's #3, for instance. heftig said: "It sounds like you're not using *-testing. gnome-unstable must be used on top of the testing repositories."
-- RafaelFF (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "warnings" at the top of the "testing repositories" section say that both core-testing and extra-testing should be enabled. As for not also specifying extra-testing, that's why I provided the link to the top of the section where the warnings are. Since both the GNOME article and the KDE article both link directly to those specific sections, I've edited the gnome-unstable part for consistency. YAOMTC (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]