On 5/7/19 1:13 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general wrote:
This thread went way beyond what it should have gone. This is the AUR we're talking about. I'm not saying we should accept any crap on the AUR, but, I'm talking from my own experience here, we don't always anticipate what will be useful or not to people.
In fact, the AUR is sort of by definition a place for people to experiment with software.
I have several packages I've put on the AUR that, even though I've followed the guidelines, I didn't expect them to be of any use to other people. And yet, they did. On the other hand, I have uploaded packages that I expected to be of use, and they turned out to not be that useful.
Unless we have a way to enforce the guidelines properly, I say that we should not bikeshed this much over AUR submissions. We have a lot of crap on AUR, yes. We have a lot of submissions that are useful to only one person, yes. We have packages that are not even for the architecture we support, yes. So, let's not dabble over a package that's not even the worse we have on the AUR *right now*.
Yeah, I think it is pretty disheartening that someone who has capably packaged software for years is receiving so much flak over how he does it, when everyone agrees that it's definitely useful to a whole bunch of random ordinary users. Because apparently ideological purity in the AUR. Even though no one can actually suggest a better way of doing it that answers the thought-provoking usability concerns which have been raised. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User