On 30 December 2010 10:46, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 30/12/10 12:16, Dan McGee wrote:
http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/cower/
Thoughts? I was under the impression we didn't do this, and definitely on purpose, otherwise people have *no* idea the AUR is different in a lot of ways. Making people go the "hard way" to get a helper installed at least presents some (necessary) barrier.
I have not used this, but I understand that it only automates the downloading of PKGBUILDs for the packages. You still need to manually build them. So, I am less against including this in the repos than something that does the building too. Still, it is a fine line...
We didn't even conclude a previous discussion [1] (if we did then it's all in the negative), and now there is one of those tools in the repositories? Honestly, I don't think this is fair practice as it undermines the initiatives of others before who did not get the green for stuff like this, and it ignores the importance of general consensus. Given that it is such a grey area, there should be an official discussion and possibly a vote. Now there is no reason why things like slurpy and other download/upload helpers shouldn't get in. [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-November/011887.html