šŸ’¾ Archived View for gemini.mcgillij.dev ā€ŗ 35_mins.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 09:44:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

ā¬…ļø Previous capture (2022-03-01)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

35 mins to Arch

:author:

mcgillij

:category:

Linux

:date:

2021-03-29 14:49

:tags:

Linux, Arch, py3status, #100DaysToOffload, Python

:slug:

35-mins-to-arch

:summary:

35 minutes from release to Arch

:cover_image:

arch.png

Contents

Bleeding Edge or Stability?

Some people (myself included) enjoy the stability of Linux. Certain distributions bring this to another level see

Debian

for a lesson on stability, used as a basis for countless other distributions. Iā€™ve used Debian for a very long time, and still do on my server.

Over the Xmas holidays I built a new workstation and decided to give

Arch Linux

a chance since for many years Iā€™d actually started to hear some ā€˜goodā€™ things about it. Ever curious I decided it would be a decent opportunity to install it on my system. **Spoilers** I didnā€™t even know that the installer was essentially just a wiki pageā€¦ Thatā€™s how much research Iā€™d done on the project before-hand. The installation took roughly an hour and went smoothly. Anyways this isnā€™t what this is about.

A number of times Iā€™ve written about the switch here:

Installing Arch Linux

pacman vs apt/dpkg

Building AURā€™s with a chroot

Dwarf Fortress in Arch

4 months later

Still running Arch on my workstation, and itā€™s been quite pleasant. No issues so far. However I was impressed by how quickly changes were getting into the distribution. I didnā€™t really have any **metric** to go by, maybe just the frequency of the updates (not only application, but also Kernel updates) that were finding their way onto my system at best this was a guesstimate.

Note: I used to run Debian **unstable and experimental** on my systems. However I mostly stick to **Testing** for workstations.

A new issue!

A couple weeks ago, I ran into an issue with

py3status

while writing a module for it

py3status-http-monitor

. Iā€™ve written a few other modules that didnā€™t run into any issues, and managed to get them working as Arch packages (AUR) as well.

A little background not that itā€™s important. Py3status has 3 supported ways to load modules.

1. Built-in modules

2. User modules (**~/.i3/py3status/**)

3. Python environment (pip installed modules, or AUR, apt etc)

I wanted users to be able to install the AUR or PyPi package and have the module be loadable by Py3status. As itā€™s not recommended that AURā€™s or Arch packages for that matter write files to the users **$HOME**.

And I wasnā€™t super interested in trying to get my modules merged into the built-in Py3status modules.

Only option left was creating a Python module, pushing it to

PyPi

for anyone to install and have Py3status pick it up when configured properly.

This was the case for my other modules:

py3status-cpu-governor

,

py3status-ups-battery-status

and

py3status-github-notifications

.

They all loaded up correctly when loaded from PyPi or AUR. But for some reason my HTTP monitor wasnā€™t working as expected.

If I loaded up a single instance of the HTTP monitor, it would work correctly. However itā€™s created in a way that you can call it several times for different services that you would like to monitor.

[image: Image of the http monitor.]

Digging deeper (And why I love open source)

The *http* module would load perfectly fine, when copied into the built-in modules and loaded that way. Would also work fine when run from the *User* modules.

When installed as a System Python package via *pip* or package manager there were errors. And there were only issues if it was loaded multiple times with different parameters (something supported by the other 2 installation methods).

Py3status being open source and hosted on Github, I snagged a copy of the code and started reproducing the issue locally. Finally when it was clear it wasnā€™t just some crazy issue that I had on my system or my own ineptitude. I put in an issue ticket for it with the project. And the next day I had a quick patch and **pull request** up for fixing the issue.

My pull request was eventually closed in favor of an easier fix by someone who was actually familiar with their codebase, which is fine since I just wanted the issue fixed.

Turns out that the bug was valid, and that not many people make re-usable modules that are distributed as python or system packages, so it slipped through the cracks till I was messing with it.

Now we wait

At this point I had already built up a patched version of py3status for my system, but this issue was blocking my ā€œreleaseā€ of the http monitor module, since I didnā€™t want to have something out there that you could install but wasnā€™t working right.

Fast forward to the next Py3status release

So a couple days ago, I ran my daily *pacman -Syu*, for those not in the know, thatā€™s a system update in the Arch world. And oh shit, new version of py3status! I wonder if it has the fix I needed. So I look at the version, hop onto Github to check the releaseā€¦ OK the numbers match the latest release, great. Thatā€™s when I noticed it.

Props to the Arch maintainers, even on Debian unstable, Iā€™d have waited likely weeks before this would have even been built.

Granted, it could have been even quicker. As I donā€™t have my update service chain spamming looking for updates.

Finally I was able to push my packages to PyPi and push to the AUR for my new py3status module.

Bleeding edge

Py3status falls under the ā€˜communityā€™ packages, which I assume donā€™t have as rigorous testing / stability requirements as the main packages. However as someone actively developing a module for it, I was super pleased at the turn-around time.

After a while you get desensitized to how well open source actually ā€œjust worksā€. And sometimes youā€™re reminded how great it is as well.

If it only takes 35 minutes to get a fixed release from Github to my system through the proper channels. And how infrequent there are breaking bugs. Is there a down side to living on the bleeding edge? Technically yesā€¦ but for a home workstation I think the risk is acceptable for me at least.