[aur-general] [community], [unsupported] and AUR
Hi, A post on the forum[1] brought my attention to the Official Repositories wiki page[2]. A recent note by Louipc states: "Technically, both the [community] and [unsupported] repos make up the AUR.". Is this really still true? The AUR website is completely independent of [community] now and I believe that all technical ties between [community] and [unsupported] have been severed. AUR pages on the wiki clearly refer to [unsupported] in many contexts, e.g. the main AUR article[3] contains the following snippets: "The Arch User Repository (AUR) is a community-driven repository for Arch users. It contains package descriptions (PKGBUILDs) that allow you to compile a package from source with makepkg and then install it via pacman." "[community], unlike AUR, contains binary packages" I also believe that most users immediately think of [unsupported] and only [unsupported] when speaking of the AUR. Furthermore, both are repositories in their own right, so it is a misnomer to refer to them as a singular "Arch User Repository". What is the point of claiming that [community] is part of AUR? It seems like an unnecessarily confusing vestige of [community]'s origins. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=887426 [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR
Am Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:14:16 +0100 schrieb Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca>:
I also believe that most users immediately think of [unsupported] and only [unsupported] when speaking of the AUR.
No, I guess most new Arch Linux users like me in the beginning of using Arch Linux are quite confused about the parallel usage of the terms [unsupported] and AUR. Every binary repo is called something in square brackets like [core], [extra], [community] etc., which are activated or deactivated in /etc/pacman.conf, but there is no repo [unsupported]. And at least I haven't found any reference on the AUR homepage to the term [unsupported]. From the user's point of view there is only AUR. So I guess at least for new users it should be made clear somewhere in the wiki and/or on the AUR homepage that AUR and [unsupported] are the same. Or the term [unsupported] or at least the square brackets around unsupported should be dropped completely. Heiko
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:39:52AM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
Every binary repo is called something in square brackets like [core], [extra], [community] etc., which are activated or deactivated in /etc/pacman.conf, but there is no repo [unsupported]. And at least I haven't found any reference on the AUR homepage to the term [unsupported]. From the user's point of view there is only AUR.
So I guess at least for new users it should be made clear somewhere in the wiki and/or on the AUR homepage that AUR and [unsupported] are the same. Or the term [unsupported] or at least the square brackets around unsupported should be dropped completely.
In my understanding, the AUR is the software [1] itself (which, iirc, isn't used by Arch only, but by a few other distributions as well) and [unsupported] is the term used for the collection of source packages that can be found on Arch's official AUR setup [2]. I agree that having this in square brackets might be a bit confusing tho... [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/
On Thursday 03 February 2011 05:39:52 Heiko Baums wrote:
Every binary repo is called something in square brackets like [core], [extra], [community] etc., which are activated or deactivated in /etc/pacman.conf, but there is no repo [unsupported]. And at least I haven't found any reference on the AUR homepage to the term [unsupported]. From the user's point of view there is only AUR.
So I guess at least for new users it should be made clear somewhere in the wiki and/or on the AUR homepage that AUR and [unsupported] are the same. Or the term [unsupported] or at least the square brackets around unsupported should be dropped completely.
+1 from me. The term [unsupported] makes it look like there's a repo called that, which there isn't. The AUR and [community] are quite separate concepts these days, if you ask me, and even though they're managed by the same group of people, this isn't at all obvious from a user perspective. Pete.
On 3 February 2011 11:14, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Hi,
A post on the forum[1] brought my attention to the Official Repositories wiki page[2].
A recent note by Louipc states: "Technically, both the [community] and [unsupported] repos make up the AUR.".
Is this really still true? The AUR website is completely independent of [community] now and I believe that all technical ties between [community] and [unsupported] have been severed.
AUR pages on the wiki clearly refer to [unsupported] in many contexts, e.g. the main AUR article[3] contains the following snippets:
"The Arch User Repository (AUR) is a community-driven repository for Arch users. It contains package descriptions (PKGBUILDs) that allow you to compile a package from source with makepkg and then install it via pacman."
"[community], unlike AUR, contains binary packages"
I also believe that most users immediately think of [unsupported] and only [unsupported] when speaking of the AUR.
Furthermore, both are repositories in their own right, so it is a misnomer to refer to them as a singular "Arch User Repository".
What is the point of claiming that [community] is part of AUR? It seems like an unnecessarily confusing vestige of [community]'s origins.
Clearly, the move to devtools has decoupled the binary repository from the AUR web, but I don't think it has decoupled the repository from its purpose.
participants (5)
-
Heiko Baums
-
Lukas Fleischer
-
Peter Lewis
-
Ray Rashif
-
Xyne