On Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:47 +0200, Arkham wrote:
On 27/ago/09, at 01:35, Nélson «VuDu» Cunha wrote:
Sorry, but please don't try to make it sound like I said that because that's not an argument at all. Following what I said before, making steps harder isn't necessarily going to make people walk through them more carefully. I don't agree that an on-line code editor would make people do more mistakes, because good maintainers would continue to test the PKGBUILD before making the changes on the on-line editor, or just simply not using it. An editor would just save the pain to archive and upload (not testing them) simple changes to the PKGBUILD, that make probably the biggest part of AUR packages updates.
I don't understand why the developers should write, test and deploy new code in the website to perform a task that can already be done with CLI tools. Which is exactly "the pain to archive and upload"? makepkg--source && $AUR_HELPER *.src.tar.gz isn't much of pain to me :) Another issue that comes to my mind: how would you update the md5sums with the online editor?
Yeah this was already brought up, not too long ago. An editor will not be implemented for the AUR. There are already many capable editors available such as vim, or emacs. Please choose one of them.
There's no point in adding an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of a text editor to the AUR.
You're lucky enough to get a textbox for comments. ;)