Jump to content

Talk:Arch Linux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LevitatingBusinessMan (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 26 May 2023 (fix some wording in my comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Logo Change

Official artwork and logo - [1]

I'm unsure if saying Archlinux is written in Python is correct

since only some tools such as archinstall is written in Python, I personally wouldn't consider an installer to be a part of the distro FallingPineapple (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The installer archinstall is a default package included in the iso. Being included as a default part of the distro makes it part of the distro.[2][3] - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something being delivered on the iso then many many more languages could be included, would you consider arch to be written in shell? FallingPineapple (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters more is are there reliable sources that consider it such. Reliable sources describe the installer as part of the release, and the installer is a critical part of the iso. When a source says Arch Linux releases starting this month will include a guided installer it's hard to argue that it's not "part of the distro". - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso however are part of the archlinux repo FallingPineapple (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and how reliable are dade2.net and techradar? FallingPineapple (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no issue with the reliability of TechRadar, and the problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso is an apples to oranges comparison which means the comparison doesn't highlight any issue, especially since what you're questioning is backed by reliable sources, which is what we use to guide the content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to bring back this discussion. First of all, the "written_in" part of the Template:Infobox OS should be "Programming languages this operating system is written in.". But the software found in a modern linux distribution is built with more than just Python and C.
But it's fair to interpret this as "languages the distribution is built with", meaning all the tools and sourcecode used to build the distribution specifically. But in this case C shouldn't be mentioned anymore. It is true that a lot of tools used by ArchLinux are written in Python. But makepkg which is used to build all packages for ArchLinux is written in shell, and so are all build instructions for all 1200 official packages. The package repositories and method they're built and delivered in is definitely what defines a distribution in my eyes, and the makepkg system is at the heart of ArchLinux. User:Aoidh, you argue the installer is a critical part of the iso (and written in python), but the tool used to built the iso is written in shell too. For reference, this is all ArchLinux sourcecode: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux.
There's a reason the infobox for most other distributions doesn't have this part filled in. I'd say the best candidate would be C as that's what the kernel is written in.
The solution I propose is to remove this minor detail all together. It is confusing at best. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"writerperfect"

It isn't clear what a "writerperfect package" is.

--Mortense (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducible builds

The reproducible builds effort (https://reproducible.archlinux.org/) should probably be mentioned somewhere, perhaps under the package management or history section. Per the Arch wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Reproducible_builds) the project appears to have been started sometime in 2020.

206.12.166.40 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph dedicated to reproducible builds in the package management section. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userland "busybox can be installed if the user desires"

I think it's weird to specify that BusyBox can be installed in the userland part of the OS template. ArchLinux does not work without the GNU coreutils and most distributions allow busybox to be installed. But we don't have "BusyBox can be installed if the user desires" added to the Debian Page. Besides, the userland is much more than just the coreutils. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I removed it. Dexxor (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]