Re: Stable GARNOME via arch

[Bob Kashani <bobk ocf berkeley edu>]

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 22:36, Jens Bech Madsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 14:55 -0700, Bob Kashani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 10:26, Stef van der Made wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > I'll just wait for a cvs version or the next release of garnome. This 
> > > arch stuff is too complicated for my simple brain.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi, Stef,
> > 
> > I'm assuming that's a subtle way of saying that my howto sucks. :-)
> 
> Don't assume that, Bob. I think it's a good howto,

Thanks.

> but still Arch is a
> lot more difficult to use than it should (and a lot more difficult than
> its competitors). Arch is a far way from being as easy to use as
> something like CVS or Subversion. It may be able to do anything
> including making coffee, but even simple operations tend to require
> several long magical incantations.

Yeah, I agree. My biggest complaint is that Arch has way too many damn
commands. It really needs to be simplified. That's the main reason why I
wrote the howto. But still I agree that Arch needs to be simplified if
it's to be used as a replacement for CVS, etc.

> I use the Arch repository to get a 2.6.0 version of Garnome since it's
> by far the easiest way to install GNOME. And there is _still_ no tarball
> for 2.6.0. It may make some sense since Garnome is for testing, not
> distributing stable GNOME releases. I think it would have made sense to
> make a 2.6.0 release to make more people test so 2.6.1 could be even
> better than it is going to be.

Agreed.

> Bottom line: Garnome is supposed to be about testing GNOME, not Arch
> (yes yes, Arch is very l33t and all that).

LOL... :-)

Bob

-- 
Bob Kashani
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bobk/garnome/