Re: [aur-general] status moving to official db scripts?
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Andrea Scarpino wrote:
2009/3/5 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
But, I guess you're right that the AUR needs some sort of changes in order to be able to do this.
Maybe we must only edit run-tupkgupdate and communitypkg on AUR? (not sure of this)
Well, those will not be needed at all once the switch is made. The decision on whether to include [community] packages on the AUR interface after the switch, or even extend it to all packages was the main issue. I think it was decided that they were to be included, so I was wanting to know who is doing the coding and what the progress is.
Hmm! That's news. I thought the consensus was that community doesn't need AUR. And in that case we just turn the daemons and cronjobs off and community goes on its merry way with devtools. We would then just alter the DB to make all community packages dummies.
Loui Chang wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Andrea Scarpino wrote:
2009/3/5 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
But, I guess you're right that the AUR needs some sort of changes in order to be able to do this.
Maybe we must only edit run-tupkgupdate and communitypkg on AUR? (not sure of this)
Well, those will not be needed at all once the switch is made. The decision on whether to include [community] packages on the AUR interface after the switch, or even extend it to all packages was the main issue. I think it was decided that they were to be included, so I was wanting to know who is doing the coding and what the progress is.
Hmm! That's news. I thought the consensus was that community doesn't need AUR. And in that case we just turn the daemons and cronjobs off and community goes on its merry way with devtools.
We would then just alter the DB to make all community packages dummies.
Hmm! Right back.... I thought we got to here: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003648.html which sort of says we were going to have them in the AUR along with the rest of the repo and just disable comments. Anyway, I suppose this could be added at any time. But given I don't want them there, I agree that we decided [community] does not need AUR! Allan Allan
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
But given I don't want them there, I agree that we decided [community] does not need AUR!
Agreed. In my opinion, AUR should be used for unsupported packages only.
2009/3/5 Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
But given I don't want them there, I agree that we decided [community] does not need AUR!
Agreed. In my opinion, AUR should be used for unsupported packages only.
+1 also for me. AUR: Arch Linux Unsupported Repository :P -- Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
But given I don't want them there, I agree that we decided [community] does not need AUR!
Agreed. In my opinion, AUR should be used for unsupported packages only.
So then would we include the community packages at http://www.archlinux.org/packages/ ? I kind of like that idea, keeps things separate. Smartboy
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Loui Chang
-
Smartboy