@linmob @purism well, with my backer hat on I do not see the reason for the rant. I backed a phone. with mainline linux stack. Apps is slightly different matter. What does look slightly off to me is that now they're asking to back finishing the phone (battery/standby) versus backing the apps (which is added service). But again, understanding resource limit and unlimited expectations from the backers - I understand and accept that.
@phase1geo@mastodon.social @lunduke You mean they compensated ytdl for stealing their repo?
@lunduke meanwhile Poland protests for the right to live. Those earthlings.
@eff Hey, what's in your pocket - a joint? Hey what's in your phone, a photo of the crime scene?
@agx @purism Oh that's nice, would allow making laptop by fitting it into #MNTreform (with _small_ modifications) or similar case packaged with akkus and screen. Technically in touchpad mode backlight could be turned off.
@mntmn Oh that aarch, no I have never run aarch64 kernel yet
@mntmn A53 cores, yes
@mntmn Not sure what do you mean by that, Kodi is extracting it from chromeos image
@dnkl I was pretty sure it worked in normal console and was thinking it's just vim specific, but now I tried in console and apparently it didn't work there either.
With primary-paste set all is good, thanks!
@dnkl How to make shift+ins work in vim? seems foot gobbles that. I.e. I select a text with shift+mouse, type / and shift+ins - but nothing being pasted. If I middle-click though selection is pasted.
@mntmn
```
# pacman -Su foot
Fehler: Ziel nicht gefunden: foot
```
:(
@geary someone who builds from source when need to test various features not in the packaged build. So my build will always be specific. but my expectations normally is if i don't provide any options (only defaults) I'd get so called vanilla build.
@geary well then I don't quite understand the problem statement in the OP. To me it looks consistent and right - by default continuity is maintained, if someone wants to jump ahead - he should explicitly ask for that.
@geary I meant packagers (or rather packaging scripts) for general public. If they are not providing build profile in majority - would still make sense to default to stable and drop a line in INSTALL about development to likely prefer development profile instead of default stable. So from developer perspective I'm fine to explicitly ask for bleeding edge and build package-like release otherwise.
@geary well, ok if choosing dev profile is undesirable for general public then shouldn't it default to stable, and then when someone needs _something specific_ like a dev profile, they provide options?
@geary to me it looks counter-intuitive to provide options to do _something_. Usually options are required to do _something specific_ which is different from mere _something_