Community Crunchbang

Digit · 2012-09-06 10:40:33

i've seen this notion mentioned a couple times, most recently again reviewing the thread suggesting a crunchbang sid.

a community based crunchbang release.

... ok, so let's say we were going to do that, in addition to phillip's releases...

how would we organise that?

would we form a council to protect the ethos n clean design principles? would we run it purely on a direct-democracy basis, counting votes for package inclusions and configurations? would we...

idk... suggestions?

(i'm still considering this as hypothetical... but it'd be good to get an idea before/if it stops being hypothetical.)

rizzo · 2012-09-06 10:49:10

I think the first thing would be identifying a developer/s willing to put it together smile

mahatman2 · 2012-09-06 13:41:37

^ true fact. I don't know much about that sort of thing but I'd be willing to try & learn / def help with package selection (testing things out, etc) and maybe some of the more user-end of things, like writing config files & such.

VastOne · 2012-09-06 14:48:41

@ Digit/omns

I'm all in

lcafiero · 2012-09-06 15:26:31

Initial thought: Why? To have what seems to be a parallel release, on the surface, appears redundant to me.

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I'm not entirely convinced of its merits either. That's why I ask.

VastOne · 2012-09-06 15:33:23

^ Community involvement and possibly a welcome load off of corenominal's plate. I know it is an interest that the boss man has thought about and perhaps a community effort could help the seed grow.

There is a large number of folks who use a debian netinstall to get to sid more efficiently and then add the CrunchBang packages. This would be another method to get the same setup.

It could possibly be a minimal package installation that would be a light, powerful, and have an up to date setup of CrunchBang. That is very enticing to me anyway...

Unia · 2012-09-06 17:31:49

Why not start indeed with a netinstall and let users wget a script like Johnraff posted here earlier? The script could be hosted by Corenominal so bandwith will be minimal.

Zen:Core · 2012-09-06 18:35:26

Instead of an entire Community Distro why not a community repo, like Arch's AUR? That's really the only thing I see missing from Debian. I know there are Debs on the webs, but having a community repo would be cool. Plus it could benefit mothership Debian if that community was also involved.

The same level of checks and balances would also be involved and in some regards would make it better then the AUR.

Thoughts?

Unia · 2012-09-06 19:04:40

Zen:Core wrote:

Instead of an entire Community Distro why not a community repo, like Arch's AUR? That's really the only thing I see missing from Debian. I know there are Debs on the webs, but having a community repo would be cool. Plus it could benefit mothership Debian if that community was also involved.
The same level of checks and balances would also be involved and in some regards would make it better then the AUR.
Thoughts?

Thoughts? Hard to accomplish. On Arch you have PKGBUILDS and makepkg, which is darn easy. On Debian, it's harder.

rizzo · 2012-09-06 19:59:34

lcafiero wrote:

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I'm not entirely convinced of its merits either.

That's essentially my point of view as well. I can see that there is a small group of users who are running Sid and using netinstalls which is what I did for a couple of years (on testing) and if running Debian would do so again.

My main thoughts are these and are why I asked my first question:

Do we really have a team with the knowledge, time and know how to put a project like this together? From what I can see we have enthusiastic beginners willing to give it a go. I think a compromise on Corenominal's quality would be a negative rather than a positive for the distro. Basically you need someone in the community who has equivalent development skills to corenominal.

If you create something like a Sid based version then is this really in line with what CrunchBang is. I don't believe so. I'd refer back to the CrunchBang homepage as to what CrunchBang is and isn't. Sid derivatives and lite versions simply aren't that.

I see CrunchBang as being unique in the Linux world as it is essentially a one man effort. A community edition would require significant input from corenominal to maintain the integrity of the distro. This would be somewhat akin to the way Clem oversees the Mint releases. In that context I think one of the first questions would be to ask corenominal if he is prepared to make that kind of commitment. I suspect the answer might be no but only from the point of view of time. I'm sure he'd love to do it in principle.

Does the Linux world really need another derivative? Something with the quality of CrunchBang is a rarity.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on it all. I know it won't be popular with some so feel free to respond in the positive or negative smile

Unia · 2012-09-06 20:11:52

^ That's why I said, provide a script and use that on a base net-install. This won't take much of Corenominal's time and it will also be a lot easier to maintain.

rizzo · 2012-09-06 20:46:34

^ I don't think corenominal needs to do it. We already have a number of community generated scripts for people to use smile

VastOne · 2012-09-06 20:55:21

^ That was the reference I was making as well in my All In statement... There are enough scripts and talent to easily create a new one..

I personally have been waiting for the release of Wheezy and Waldorf to be final before writing any more scripts... Too many things volatile right now in the Wheezy world and once it all settles down will be the best time to work on it, IMO.

Unia · 2012-09-07 09:32:22

omns wrote:

^ I don't think corenominal needs to do it. We already have a number of community generated scripts for people to use

I didn't say it's his job. You said

omns wrote:

A community edition would require significant input from corenominal to maintain the integrity of the distro.

With a script, this be less of an issue.

pvsage · 2012-09-07 10:09:27

omns wrote:

^ I don't think corenominal needs to do it. We already have a number of community generated scripts for people to use

Do we have any community-generated ISOs, or is Corenominal the only one of us who has cracked the DebianLive cipher?

rizzo · 2012-09-07 12:55:12

^ I have a nice Debian Live how-to guide somewhere that was written by Ikey Doherty as well as a great set of Debian Live scripts created originally by rich. I've just found that with the limited amount of installs I do these days that I really haven't had much need for them. A build script does the job quite simply and quickly and I like to stick to pure Debian if possible.. Outside of that I have CrunchBang for creating live disks and CrunchBang support installs smile

Awebb · 2012-09-07 13:21:13

Before you guys go all funny and end up with a totally different distro… is there now a src-repo for crunchbang, or are there still the binary packages?

el_koraco · 2012-09-07 13:28:06

Unia wrote:

On Arch you have PKGBUILDS and makepkg, which is darn easy. On Debian, it's harder.

Not really, you add two directories and a couple of files and run dpkg. The packages in the Debian repos are usually more script-rich than those in Arch, hence the complexity and stuff (dpkg exited with status 3: error processing postinst - can't touch /usr/lib/sacrifice/firstborn, it appears not to be there).

bozhkov · 2012-09-07 15:15:09

Be it as it may, may be we can patch up something if we put our efforts together - what about a community-backed return #! xfce edition? smile a 4.8 or 4.10 xfce image based on the current Waldorf release with upgraded config files from the late xfce edition?

rizzo · 2012-09-07 18:28:30

bozhkov wrote:

what about a community-backed return #! xfce edition?

First, I don't have any inside information but my money is on a return of the Xfce edition for Waldorf smile

pvsage · 2012-09-07 20:32:43

Awebb wrote:

Before you guys go all funny and end up with a totally different distro… is there now a src-repo for crunchbang, or are there still the binary packages?

I know that, in Statler, /etc/apt/sources.list includes deb-src URIs for statler and statler-* (the latter for the static multimedia and mozilla mirrors), but since I've never used them, I cannot confirm that they have source packages. But since Philip does rebuild a few packages specifically for CrunchBang, doesn't he *need* to have the source for these rebuilt packages available to comply with GPL?

johnraff · 2012-09-08 03:03:01

It's there:
http://packages.crunchbang.org/waldorf/pool/main/
The .tar.gz packages should contain the source. I've just downloaded arandr and it looks like a normal source package. I was a little disappointed not to see any mention of the crunchbang-specific modifications in NEWS or ChangeLog though - you'd have to do a diff with the original package I guess.

Digit · 2012-09-08 03:29:48

i suppose i'll throw in some thoughts about this too...

with hindsight of seeing other distros turn into community-based releases, it is no guaruntee of any advantage in and of itself, and it needs great care of the organisational details to make sure it's not a detriment.

my wording in initial post may have been misleading, i wasnt suggesting it be a sid based, only that i'd seen mention of the community created version of crunchbang in another thread that happened to be about a sid version of crunchbang.

one-man distros are far from rare, infact they're the majority. the quality of crunchbang, as is, is rare though. so why a community release? well, besides the obvious retort of "why not?", this community is already a very active one, rich in competent n helpful users providing a great number of innovations. who knows where it could go. ... and it's that unknown element that i think makes the notion most appealing to me.

however, i strongly doubt i'd ever want such a community conjured version to supplant corenominal's releases. "if it aint broke..."
unless perhaps, somehow we made something so much better (i cant imagine), and/or philip gave up (i see as unlikely).

anyways, back to my original question...

if we were sure to be doing it... how would we?

i like the input on that so far.
~ identify willing and capable devs, *raises hand* (it's not too difficult, nor much workload, to respin debian n debian based distros).
~ CUR (crunchbang user repo). nice idea. skimming through packages the other day, i saw a few package maintainer helper tools for debian.

one issue that still seems prominent to me, n largely untouched by this thread so far, is ... well... lets illustrate it thus...

if this community version of crunchbang is to be made, and carry the crunchbang name on it still, it'd certainly need to have a high level of quality assurance, so as not to muddy public perception of the quality of corenominal's crunchbang... one small part of that, could involve making sure the distinction is clearly marked throughout, but that alone would hardly suffice, and as i say, "quality assurance" of some kind would be a must. ... and to that, i propose a dual voting system, and highlight an unacceptable alternative.

two votes.
~ one for electing community members to help safeguard quality, design ethos, clean-ness, etc. (would these be the same people as the willing and capable devs? maybe, but not essentially.)
~ the other, not a mere single "who" but the "direct democracy" deal, where votes are for packages to add in as default, packages to remove, packages to replace, packages to have availed in start-up scripts, configs to have, changes to be made to configs, configs to be made available to switch to on scripts, motions and seconds of the above, and veto-votes of the above too. ... maybe some system of vote-up, vote-down, and/or a system for determining whether a package/config change gets included, put into post-install scripts as an option, or just removed.
... and of course creating some simple, accessible, effective web interface for accomodating all that. (or some software version, no web necessary? or both, web, and in-distro software versions, both contributing to the same?)

an unacceptable alternative... just leaving the small band of capable devs to make it however they see fit. ... this to me is where it would just get messy, too many chefs, not enough safeguards or quality control, not enough community involvement. idk, maybe, with the right people, it could work, maybe, for a while, or get lucky with a couple releases... but that seems rather flimsy, living in hope.

many of us will have seen several of the crunchbang-inspired distros... they just dont have the same clarity that crunchbang has. they get muddy, often like they are made by a sugar crazed child in a candy store, told they can have whatever they want, throwing everything in the mix. ... that's what i'd really hate to see happen. it'd give both our community, and crunchbang itself, a bad name.

and finally, copyright. i think for any such hypothetical distro to cease being hypothetical, and bear the crunchbang name somewhere, it'd need philip's permission. .... i suppose we could always call it "community bang". XD

thnx for everyone's contribution to the thread, raising many issues i hadnt considered. smile

Last edited by Digit (2012-09-08 03:38:39)

johnraff · 2012-09-08 03:42:18

Digit wrote:

...if this community version of crunchbang is to be made, and carry the crunchbang name on it...
...and finally, copyright. i think for any such hypothetical distro to cease being hypothetical, and bear the crunchbang name somewhere, it'd need philip's permission.

That's it basically. Crunchbang is Crunchbang and keeps its clarity because it's the work of one man. A community distro wouldn't be Crunchbang.

Still, it sounds like an interesting project as something Crunchbang-inspired, with a different name.

VastOne · 2012-09-08 03:51:18

@Digit... Wow... A lot of insight and detail in that discussion and obviously something you have been thinking about.

The more I think about this, and after reading your second half (voting/politics), it makes me realize just how much I admire the approach corenominal is taking with #!. On major decisions (removal of xfce, changes in browsers, geany) C-Man seems quite comfortable in laying out the ax or making a change based on his own use of a new app. Some, I cannot figure out, say for instance SLiM, but that may just be me. What I like the most is that Philip will open a thread or join a discussion and debate, talk, defend any of his decisions. He is also open to suggestions and will add them when there is a consensus that it would be a good addition (htop, compton)...

I like this process... I think it is part of the signature DNA of CrunchBang. I would love to know some of the details of the scripts (debian live) that Philip uses, but I understand why they are closely guarded (if in fact they are).

I think the best approach to another 'edition' of CrunchBang (Sid/Lite) would have to come from Philip and be setup as a choice for the user. I do not personally think there would be much additional work from Philip to make this happen using the current Waldorf Distro. If in fact a decision does come from Philip to do this, I think he would create a separate thread to open the forum up for discussions on where to take it, which would become the community focus. I agree with you on the level of expertise here, if Philip were to release a can of beans, we would figure out how to make them the best can of beans there is.

I think it is our job as a community to let Philip know we will support any expansion and that he can trust it will be well take care of.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-09-06 10:40:33

Community Crunchbang

#2 2012-09-06 10:49:10

Re: Community Crunchbang

#3 2012-09-06 13:41:37

Re: Community Crunchbang

#4 2012-09-06 14:48:41

Re: Community Crunchbang

#5 2012-09-06 15:26:31

Re: Community Crunchbang

#6 2012-09-06 15:33:23

Re: Community Crunchbang

#7 2012-09-06 17:31:49

Re: Community Crunchbang

#8 2012-09-06 18:35:26

Re: Community Crunchbang

#9 2012-09-06 19:04:40

Re: Community Crunchbang

#10 2012-09-06 19:59:34

Re: Community Crunchbang

#11 2012-09-06 20:11:52

Re: Community Crunchbang

#12 2012-09-06 20:46:34

Re: Community Crunchbang

#13 2012-09-06 20:55:21

Re: Community Crunchbang

#14 2012-09-07 09:32:22

Re: Community Crunchbang

#15 2012-09-07 10:09:27

Re: Community Crunchbang

#16 2012-09-07 12:55:12

Re: Community Crunchbang

#17 2012-09-07 13:21:13

Re: Community Crunchbang

#18 2012-09-07 13:28:06

Re: Community Crunchbang

#19 2012-09-07 15:15:09

Re: Community Crunchbang

#20 2012-09-07 18:28:30

Re: Community Crunchbang

#21 2012-09-07 20:32:43

Re: Community Crunchbang

#22 2012-09-08 03:03:01

Re: Community Crunchbang

#23 2012-09-08 03:29:48

Re: Community Crunchbang

#24 2012-09-08 03:42:18

Re: Community Crunchbang

#25 2012-09-08 03:51:18

Re: Community Crunchbang

Board footer