On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Xyne wrote:

nathan duane wrote:

...

I have a suggestion, it would be nice to have a text editor for the AUR page so u could edit your PKGBUILDs without having to download then resubmit

I think that's an interesting idea and it should only need a few tweaks to the code that displays the PKGBUILDs already (wrap the output in a text area, add it to a form and then handle the POST data).

If we added this then changed the AUR so that any registered user could edit any orphaned package online, it might encourage drive-by updates. This would not present any new security concerns because any registered user can already adopt a package, edit it, upload it then disown it. On the other hand, not having to jump through those hoops might encourage people to update it on the spot.

This might make such drive-by updates so easy that, since users would no longer have to download the package data at all, they would submit their edits without even bothering to compile-test them. At least now it's likely that most people would at least run makepkg since it's only a single extra step once you have it all downloaded and updated.

On July 1, 2009 09:13:36 pm Daniel J Griffiths wrote:

So add a checkbox for the editor on orphaned packages so that they have to verify that they have sucessfully built it before it can be submitted. Would they not have to download it to check the build anyway? That kinda' negates the point of having an online editor.

Ray Kohler schrieb:

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Xyne wrote:

...

nathan duane wrote:

...

I have a suggestion, it would be nice to have a text editor for the AUR page so u could edit your PKGBUILDs without having to download then resubmit I think that's an interesting idea and it should only need a few tweaks to the code that displays the PKGBUILDs already (wrap the output in a text area, add it to a form and then handle the POST data).

If we added this then changed the AUR so that any registered user could edit any orphaned package online, it might encourage drive-by updates. This would not present any new security concerns because any registered user can already adopt a package, edit it, upload it then disown it. On the other hand, not having to jump through those hoops might encourage people to update it on the spot.

This might make such drive-by updates so easy that, since users would no longer have to download the package data at all, they would submit their edits without even bothering to compile-test them. At least now it's likely that most people would at least run makepkg since it's only a single extra step once you have it all downloaded and updated.

1+ Stefan

Stefan Husmann wrote:

Ray Kohler schrieb:

...

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Xyne wrote:

...

nathan duane wrote:

...

I have a suggestion, it would be nice to have a text editor for the AUR page so u could edit your PKGBUILDs without having to download then resubmit I think that's an interesting idea and it should only need a few tweaks to the code that displays the PKGBUILDs already (wrap the output in a text area, add it to a form and then handle the POST data).

If we added this then changed the AUR so that any registered user could edit any orphaned package online, it might encourage drive-by updates. This would not present any new security concerns because any registered user can already adopt a package, edit it, upload it then disown it. On the other hand, not having to jump through those hoops might encourage people to update it on the spot.

This might make such drive-by updates so easy that, since users would no longer have to download the package data at all, they would submit their edits without even bothering to compile-test them. At least now it's likely that most people would at least run makepkg since it's only a single extra step once you have it all downloaded and updated.

1+

Stefan hmm if there was some way for makepkg to generate a code after it compiles fine, then have to put the code in the webpage before it will allow the upload

Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 23:59, nathan owe. wrote:

...

hmm if there was some way for makepkg to generate a code after it compiles fine, then have to put the code in the webpage before it will allow the upload

This has the exact same issue that makepkg needs to be run, which means the PKGBUILD has to be on your local machine, which means that the editor serves absolutely no purpose.

well maybe a quick edit, l,ike u miss-typed something and it doesn't change the md5sums

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 00:10:28 -0400 Ronuk Raval wrote:

...

well maybe a quick edit, l,ike u miss-typed something and it doesn't change the md5sums If you mistyped something and it compiled fine when you checked it with makepkg, then clearly the change is just going to be cosmetic. Personally, I don't think that someone needs to go through all the

On July 2, 2009 12:06:24 am nathan owe. wrote: trouble of adding an editor for the off chance that someone needs to make a cosmetic change.

Also, someone also brought up the point that it would just be a text edit, and not a _real_ editor by any stretch of the imagination. You can pry my vim from my cold dead hands.

I agree that it would only be good for cosmetic changes, add the possible problems and it would be more harm than good.