[aur-general] Why is there no option to delete your own package in AUR yourself?
Hello fellow Archers! I wonder why there's no option to delete your own package from AUR. Some users pointed out, that there once was too much abusive behaviour. I can't think of a way how this could be abused, if you are only allowed to delete your _own_ uploaded packages, except one: If there's many users (and OTHER packages from AUR that rely on that perticular package [eg bin32-wine relies on lib32-libldap from AUR]), and you delete it, thus breaking dependencies. My proposal is: Allow people to delete their own AUR packages if a) No other AUR package depends on it and b) if there's less than 10 people "using" it (aurvote). This way it would be easy to delete a faulty package without first asking on the list and it would hopefully encourage more people to try and put PKGBUILDS on AUR. akurei
On 07/14/2010 01:54 PM, Michael Düll (akurei) wrote:
I think both problems continue to exist by allowing the owner to upload an empty or even malicious pkgbuild. However, if letting the owner delete their own package is still undesirable, one workaround would be letting the owner disown the package. Deletes can happen with pruning (probably another discussion) or by continuing to e-mail this list. Dave
On 07/14/2010 11:54 PM, Michael Düll (akurei) wrote:
we had in the past a problem with an user who deleted a lot of packages. he did that by adopting orphaned packages -- Ionuț
Am Mittwoch 14 Juli 2010, 23:10:07 schrieb Ionuț Bîru:
Okay, so let's introduce a "barrier": Let one delete packages like I said (he owns them, no other package relies on it, no more than 10 aurvotes) _plus_ let one delete packages, that he owns for _more than three months_. This way there's less chance that someboy "goes amok". Additionally there could be an "Trusted-User-Only Undelete" feature for a few weeks. akurei
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Michael Düll (akurei) <mail@akurei.org> wrote:
I guess you could open this as a feature request if you really want to, the problem I see is that you have to make sure the system can't be abused. Also, someone has to code it up, and I haven't really seen much interest in the aur website at all. Its just what I think atm.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, this seems like more work then just asking for a tu to check out a package and delete it.
Am Donnerstag 15 Juli 2010, 00:41:13 schrieb Thomas Dziedzic:
I could take over this task. Somehow (if there's PHP and SQL). I am merely asking if it would be accepted by the Archers ;) akurei
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Michael Düll (akurei) <mail@akurei.org> wrote:
I just think that maintaining the aur should be left up to the TUs is all. And Allan's just proposed idea seems a lot more appealing to me :)
On 15/07/10 08:49, Michael Düll (akurei) wrote:
I think it would be better to just have a "delete request" button which would require a note why the package needs deleted so that the TUs could have a list they can easily access and work through. Allan
16.07.2010 19:58, Michael Düll (akurei) пишет:
Allan McRae wrote:
Good idea, especially since the management of AUR will be more connected with the website. It confused me that the management was outside on this list, and it still presents a mental barrier on how to work with the AUR. Could something similar also be done with adopt requests? I both situations I assume that the package owner will be contacted as well with time given to response before a TU takes a look at it.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 18:58, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 08:58 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
A much better idea. For quick response we could just mail aur-general directly (those of us who use it). Simplest solution would probably send an email to [aur-general] with the comments posted and giving the user's logged-in email address. Perhaps it should be a 'delete/disown request' button instead, and allowed for all package rather than just your own. Or 'delete' when its your own and 'disown' when its not.
On 07/14/2010 04:41 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
For "disowns", I think the owner should also be e-mails so that he may appeal the request. Dave
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:46 -0700, Dave wrote:
Well yes, I was assuming that the current owner would be informed automatically. In any case, whenever a reporter does not state explicitly that "I emailed X a week ago with no reply" the TUs typically ask him to do so first, so I don't see any difference with how things are previously even if the current owner is not automatically informed.
participants (9)
-
Allan McRae
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Dave
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Michael Düll (akurei)
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Peter Hultqvist
-
Thomas Dziedzic
-
Александр Фролушкин