[arch-dev-public] Breaking the unspoken rule: AUR helper in [community]
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. -Dan
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... Allan
On 30 December 2010 10:46, Allan McRae
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
On 12/29/2010 09:46 PM, Allan McRae 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...
When we first launched the AUR, we thought about this a lot. I agree it's a fine line, but I think the package build step is the right place for the line. This is close to the line-- but that's where the optimal efficiency lies. Of course, this is just my opinion. I fully support any decision of the developers and TUs that might be more conservative for practical/empirical reasons. But I would object to policies that allowed automatic building of packages from untrusted PKBUILDs. - P
On 12/30/2010 04:16 AM, 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.
-Dan
this is my mistake suggesting him to push it community mostly because cower is not like yaourt. It doesn't help building anything and users still have to familiar themselves with PKGBUILD and makepkg. i consider cower being a cli interface from aur and it much better than the html version. with it i can found more easily packages because it has bash completion, searching has regex. Just try to find the link for opera build from aur using the html interface vs cower. The only "rule" i found in wikis about this subject is: Note: There is not and will never be an official mechanism for installing build material from UNSUPPORTED. All users should be familiar with the build process. Maybe we should change that and include all aur helpers that interface with the official json api from aur.archlinux.org. -- Ionuț
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Paul Mattal
-
Ray Rashif