-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:27:33 +0100 Subject: [aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering [community] From: Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general@archlinux.org>
Hi all,
As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before voting. Here is the current wording:
[proposal]
* Only "popular" packages may enter the repo, as defined by 1% usage from pkgstats or 10 votes on the AUR.
* Automatic exceptions to this rule are: - i18n packages - accessibility packages - drivers - dependencies, including makedeps and optdeps - packages that are part of a collection and are intended to be distributed together, provided the primary part of this collection satisfies the definition of popular
* Any additions not covered by the above criteria must first be proposed on the aur-general mailing list, explaining the reason for the exemption (e.g. renamed package, new package) at which point a general consensus from the TUs will be reached. TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected.
* TUs are strongly encouraged to move packages they currently maintain from [community] if they have low usage. No enforcement will be made, although resigning TUs packages may be filtered before adoption can occur.
[end proposal]
So, go ahead and discuss. Especially focus on the wording and regions that people would feel need clarification before I call for a formal vote. In particular, I think the process for addition of packages which do not meet the popularity criteria needs to be defined better, so any ideas there would be appreciated.
Any further additions to do with cleaning the current package load in [community] for low usage package is a separate issue and will be discussed at a later date.
Allan
Hello, sorry, something must be wrong with my IRC-environment or with my knowledge about it. Again I did not manage to join. So let me discuss the proposal here. First I have some questions. What are accessibility packages? Things like ssh?
- packages that are part of a collection and are intended to be distributed together, provided the primary part of this collection satisfies the definition of popular To whose intention do you reflect here? I guess to upstreamer's intention? I think of the texlive-doc packages here I maintain in community.
TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected. Do you mean that? Or should it be"packages of TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected."?
Some thoughts. - If we encourage people to drop packages that are not popular, we should also encourage them to take packages in "usupported" that _are_ popular to "community". - What if there are popular third party repos with packages? Should this give an impact on our decision to put these packages to community or not? - The benefit for the user of packages being distributed in binary form varies. I.e. a package with low complexity or no compile time could easily stay in AUR even if it is popular. Just my 2 cents, regards Stefan