On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:17:33PM -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
1. Integrated distributed version control system
Why would we need that? Keep it simple. People can setup their own repos if they want, just as I did [1].
2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should probably be carefully controlled)
Hm, basically the problem with that is that people would need to trust every user uploading packages to the AUR just as they trust TUs or devs. There would be no easy way to check if a package contains malicious code.
3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else)
If something has been obsoleted by something else, people can just mention that in the comments and/or send a mail to aur-general (as they always did). TUs will have a look at it then and remove it. That's so simple.
4. An official client
Why? There is a huge number of clients that work well. I personally prefer to download AUR packages manually, build using makepkg(1) and use aurploader to upload stuff, some others prefer pacman wrappers, some others rather use aurbuild/makeaur. Why shouldn't we just let people decide how to do it? Isn't the "do-it-yourself" approach part of the Arch Philosophy?
5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better
Hm. I'd be fine with that, but it isn't a must. The main problem is, that it's not easy to implement. We had that discussion before. But if you want to put much effort in integrating it everywhere in a clean way and also agree to maintain it, you'd get a yes from me :) [1] http://git.cryptocrack.de/?p=archlinux-packages.git;a=summary