Re: [aur-general] packages without category

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Emil Lundberg wrote:

I agree that tags would be cool but I don't see a real need for it, "yaourt

We have them already - just look at the AUR packages page. They are part of the web search interface - 'search in category' - but doesn't work as expected.

<searchterm>" is usually good enough for me. I think that if tags were to be added it would make sense to make it a feature provided by the AUR web interface rather than the packages themselves, so the tags could be edited in a Wiki/StackExchange-like way without modifying the packages. Then

again, trolls.

Trolls?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:

...

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:

...

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:

...

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:

...

On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote: > There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' > - apparently not a hot topic.

I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.

...

This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since

You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?

Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.

Sorry, didn't realized it .

...

Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.

...

...

you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose

You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.

That would be server-side of course!

...

...

...

one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I

don't

...

...

really see myself doing this any time soon.

The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.

I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.

I tend to agree... somehow. Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or more categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?

Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a consistent state either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to the list of categories to be searched for.

rtf