On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Bartek Piotrowski <barthalion@gmail.com> wrote:

Ex Falso is already in Quod Libet and this is not reason to remove it from AUR.

Beginning of the sentence is in english? i would add package is: - orphan - out-of-date since febrary 2011 - not update since april 2010 - already in extra. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Bartek Piotrowski <barthalion@gmail.com> wrote:

2011/7/9 Seblu <seblu@seblu.net>:

...

Beginning of the sentence is in english?

Ex Falso[1] in AUR.

[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19030

I wanted to adopt ntpdate to update it, but i'm believe package which have strict equivalent in official repo should not stay in AUR. Maybe a TU can englighten me? This package should be removed or updated? -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:20 PM, jesse jaara <jesse.jaara@gmail.com> wrote:

Upsated some might find the implementation in AUR more appealing than the one in repo. The is nothing that prevents people from uploading stuff to AUR just cuz it has same features as the repo package. No, us. AUR is not a space where everybody can do what they wants. There is rules, TUs and community are here to keep it as clean as possible.

Like example there are/were many -pulse packases in aur that simply add pulse support to the repo package.

This is not the point. I needs cairo-xcb which enable xcb support in cairo (from repo) to use awesome. Those cases seems to have sense to be in AUR. I don't see from what this package is different from extra one. If it's a duplication, there is no need to maintain it twice. That's my point. Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Baptiste <zerstorer@free.fr> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Seblu wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Bartek Piotrowski <barthalion@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2011/7/9 Seblu <seblu@seblu.net>:
>> >> Beginning of the sentence is in english?
>> >
>> > Ex Falso[1] in AUR.
>> >
>> > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19030
>> >
>>
>> I wanted to adopt ntpdate to update it, but i'm believe package which
>> have strict equivalent in official repo should not stay in AUR.
>> Maybe a TU can englighten me? This package should be removed or updated?
>
> As far as I can tell, it doesn't look to be the exact same package as
> the one in [extra].
>
> The [extra] package includes the ntp daemon, while this one only
> bundles the ntpdate program.
This doesn't give more features. Arch doesn't start (like some others
distro) daemons automatically after install, so there is only size of
package difference.

> Yet, the overhead is not huge (the 'ntp' package takes 1.59 MB while
> 'ntpdate' from AUR takes 0.18 MB), and imho, it isn't worth the time
> compiling the AUR package.
To install it, we need to download package tarball + ntp tarball (1,2K
+ 4,2 M).

> The best solution might be to keep ntpdate-dev and delete ntpdate from
> the AUR.
I agree.

-- 
Sébastien Luttringer
www.seblu.net