In which case, there are no packages defined there which are Arch specific except pacman. So... pacman is the Arch source, right?
A lot of these packages have Arch-specific modifications. For example, filesystem doesn't even have a non-Arch upstream as it defines the filesystem layout. That PKGBUILD and everything it depends on is the Arch source. Distributions are defined by which packages they include.
ah, thanks for the clarification!
is archived
There is even a sentence in README.md that makes it explicit:
The source files in this repo are for historical reference and will be kept static, so please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files […]
Ignore them. Send a pull request with the full source of Arch Linux.
Nah, just a giant compiled binary blob. That's what all the cool hackers do these days.
dumb question maybe, but where is the full source of arch Linux? My understanding is that its just vanilla Linux that uses the pacman package manager.
Am I wrong in saying the pacman is the Arch source? Or is there more going on in the tar ball?
https://archlinux.org/packages/core/any/base/
Cheers! It looks like this is then the PKGBUILD
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/base/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads
In which case, there are no packages defined there which are Arch specific except pacman. So... pacman is the Arch source, right?
A lot of these packages have Arch-specific modifications. For example, filesystem doesn't even have a non-Arch upstream as it defines the filesystem layout. That PKGBUILD and everything it depends on is the Arch source. Distributions are defined by which packages they include.
ah, thanks for the clarification!
is archived
There is even a sentence in
README.mdthat makes it explicit:Somebody fork it then?
Time to fork!