The base tarball that separates Arch from Debian or Gentoo differ in very minor structural ways, but the difference is the way they fetch, parse, and install packages is huge.
Given this small difference in base tarballs, one can make the case the Arch codebase is the pacman codebase.
(not quite sure where the hostility is coming from, but) if you agree that the base tarball of the distro is inconsequential, then one could argue that the package manager is the actual distro.
That is, using pacman on Windows is akin to an Arch installation on windows.
Apologies, hostility wasn’t my intention, only seeking understanding.
Ya know, in the context of the software in a vacuum, sure. But I think I’ll ammend what I said earlier about what constitutes a distro:
IMO, It’s not just software that glues other existing software together into a contiguous OS, but also a staff, a community, a philosophy cast on that collection of software. A way of doing things and thinking about them. Decisions and the rationale for them, a history of iteration, user needs and how those needs are filled. Us soft squishy humans that make, maintain, modify, administer, use, and complain about the software.
Because I think that reducing a distro to only the software it produces or uses fails to paint the whole picture. The mechanisms used for managing the collection of software on any specific machine is only one part of a larger system.
Pacman isn’t the only part of Arch, and Arch isn’t just pacman. The same is true if you s/Arch/MSYS2/g on that statement.
I hear what you’re saying but I try my best to divorce a piece of art from its art fans and curators, because ultimately I don’t want to be sold into a doctrine on how I should see something, I just want to enjoy it.
I do agree that Arch is much bigger than its codebase (I just sometimes wish it wasn’t, with the sole exception of the Arch Wiki)
I’m genuinely not sure what you’re saying here…
The base tarball that separates Arch from Debian or Gentoo differ in very minor structural ways, but the difference is the way they fetch, parse, and install packages is huge.
Given this small difference in base tarballs, one can make the case the Arch codebase is the pacman codebase.
I mean… Yeah…? It’s not all that controversial to say that any distro is essentially just glue between several pieces of software…
What’s your point?
(not quite sure where the hostility is coming from, but) if you agree that the base tarball of the distro is inconsequential, then one could argue that the package manager is the actual distro.
That is, using pacman on Windows is akin to an Arch installation on windows.
Apologies, hostility wasn’t my intention, only seeking understanding.
Ya know, in the context of the software in a vacuum, sure. But I think I’ll ammend what I said earlier about what constitutes a distro:
IMO, It’s not just software that glues other existing software together into a contiguous OS, but also a staff, a community, a philosophy cast on that collection of software. A way of doing things and thinking about them. Decisions and the rationale for them, a history of iteration, user needs and how those needs are filled. Us soft squishy humans that make, maintain, modify, administer, use, and complain about the software.
Because I think that reducing a distro to only the software it produces or uses fails to paint the whole picture. The mechanisms used for managing the collection of software on any specific machine is only one part of a larger system.
Pacman isn’t the only part of Arch, and Arch isn’t just pacman. The same is true if you
s/Arch/MSYS2/gon that statement.I hear what you’re saying but I try my best to divorce a piece of art from its art fans and curators, because ultimately I don’t want to be sold into a doctrine on how I should see something, I just want to enjoy it.
I do agree that Arch is much bigger than its codebase (I just sometimes wish it wasn’t, with the sole exception of the Arch Wiki)