There are 828 packages from 299 maintainers where category is set to 'none' - another 209 packages are orphaned.
orphan - Buce https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=0
buhman - gtmanfred https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=2...
gtmanfred - Perberos https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=5...
Perberos - yhager https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=7...
yhager - zosodk69 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=1...
full csv list of packages with category=none (no orphaned listed) http://sprunge.us/Necd
This top-20 list counting for nearly 50% of the packages 8 masterkorp 9 Huulivoide 9 zootboy 10 spider-mario 11 buhman 11 kevku 11 nbryskin 12 eworm 13 demonicmaniac 15 crocowhile 16 Mizuchi 16 t-8ch 18 taylorchu 21 chenxiaolong 27 Diego 32 gtmanfred 33 yhager 34 StefanHusmann 35 Perberos 43 Morfeo
full csv list maintainers with a count of packages with category=none http://sprunge.us/BDFD
I think this has no priority but should be fixed nevertheless.
Ok, I'll fix my packages. I'm "Diego" on AUR *Diego*
2013/6/26 Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com
There are 828 packages from 299 maintainers where category is set to 'none'
- another 209 packages are orphaned.
orphan - Buce https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=0
buhman - gtmanfred https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=2...
gtmanfred - Perberos https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=5...
Perberos - yhager https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=7...
yhager - zosodk69 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=1...
full csv list of packages with category=none (no orphaned listed) http://sprunge.us/Necd
This top-20 list counting for nearly 50% of the packages 8 masterkorp 9 Huulivoide 9 zootboy 10 spider-mario 11 buhman 11 kevku 11 nbryskin 12 eworm 13 demonicmaniac 15 crocowhile 16 Mizuchi 16 t-8ch 18 taylorchu 21 chenxiaolong 27 Diego 32 gtmanfred 33 yhager 34 StefanHusmann 35 Perberos 43 Morfeo
full csv list maintainers with a count of packages with category=none http://sprunge.us/BDFD
I think this has no priority but should be fixed nevertheless.
On 06/26/2013 10:46 AM, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
There are 828 packages from 299 maintainers where category is set to 'none'
- another 209 packages are orphaned.
orphan - Buce https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=0
buhman - gtmanfred https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=2...
gtmanfred - Perberos https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=5...
Perberos - yhager https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=7...
yhager - zosodk69 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?C=1&PP=250&SB=m&SO=a&O=1...
full csv list of packages with category=none (no orphaned listed) http://sprunge.us/Necd
This top-20 list counting for nearly 50% of the packages 8 masterkorp 9 Huulivoide 9 zootboy 10 spider-mario 11 buhman 11 kevku 11 nbryskin 12 eworm 13 demonicmaniac 15 crocowhile 16 Mizuchi 16 t-8ch 18 taylorchu 21 chenxiaolong 27 Diego 32 gtmanfred 33 yhager 34 StefanHusmann 35 Perberos 43 Morfeo
full csv list maintainers with a count of packages with category=none http://sprunge.us/BDFD
I think this has no priority but should be fixed nevertheless.
Holy crap, I am actually shocked that jnbek doesn't appear on that sprunge at least once... out of almost 800 pkgs, I fig'd there would be at least 1 without a category, I know there were like 3 that didn't have a description and I think I got those fixed... but all mine with categories, that blows my mind, lol...
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' - apparently not a hot topic.
Maybe we add another line to Statistics on the AUR front page just to let users know of packages not found by the package search function - unless searched by using 'Category=All', clicked on 'Category' and reading all entries with 'Category=none' to look for possible search targets.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
Maybe we add another line to Statistics on the AUR front page just to let users know of packages not found by the package search function
- unless searched by using 'Category=All', clicked on 'Category' and
reading all entries with 'Category=none' to look for possible search targets.
To be honest I find those categories pretty pointless, because they're vague (system, lib, x11, ...) and not used for the packages in the official repositories. As soon as a package moves to [community] or [extra], the category is gone.
The only really interesting category imo is the games one. And even that is mostly pointless. Who really searches the AUR by category after all. On Jul 30, 2013 7:01 PM, "Daniel Micay" danielmicay@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
Maybe we add another line to Statistics on the AUR front page just to let users know of packages not found by the package search function
- unless searched by using 'Category=All', clicked on 'Category' and
reading all entries with 'Category=none' to look for possible search targets.
To be honest I find those categories pretty pointless, because they're vague (system, lib, x11, ...) and not used for the packages in the official repositories. As soon as a package moves to [community] or [extra], the category is gone.
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
[1] I don't think the caetgories are useful in the current state, because they don't represent natural grouping of existing software at all (eg. should a GTK utility be considered "gnome", "x11" or something else?). For this to work, tags would be in my opinion much more usable – given the packages were properly tagged, anyone could easily find packages such as "gtk multimedia player".
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
[1] I don't think the caetgories are useful in the current state, because they don't represent natural grouping of existing software at all (eg. should a GTK utility be considered "gnome", "x11" or something else?). For this to work, tags would be in my opinion much more usable – given the packages were properly tagged, anyone could easily find packages such as "gtk multimedia player".
I think descriptions and dependencies include the required information in almost every case.
I think tags would be cool but really not worth the effort. Like Dan said, descriptions are king. On Jul 30, 2013 7:17 PM, "Daniel Micay" danielmicay@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com
wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
[1] I don't think the caetgories are useful in the current state, because they don't represent natural grouping of existing software at all (eg. should a GTK utility be considered "gnome", "x11" or something else?). For this to work, tags would be in my opinion much more usable – given the packages were properly tagged, anyone could easily find packages such as "gtk multimedia player".
I think descriptions and dependencies include the required information in almost every case.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Daniel Micay danielmicay@gmail.comwrote:
I think descriptions and dependencies include the required information in almost every case.
Searching in a pool of >40000 packages naturally leads to using a category in which to search for, doesn't it? And packages without category wouldn't show up.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't really see myself doing this any time soon.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com
wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com
wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
d
On 2013-07-30 14:47, Dave Reisner wrote:
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I rather fit in to this school of thought as well. The notion of tags for packages is a cool one, but if it were to be done, I think it would make more sense for that to be something that anyone can add (if you see a package that you felt was missing a relevant tag, you could just add it) or remove.
Having said that, I'm not sure how much that really adds (assuming people write pkgdescs well).
All the best,
-Sam
I feel like a free for all tag system would end with a bunch of trolls spamming the AUR. On Jul 30, 2013 9:34 PM, "Sam Stuewe" halosghost@archlinux.info wrote:
On 2013-07-30 14:47, Dave Reisner wrote:
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal
regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I rather fit in to this school of thought as well. The notion of tags for packages is a cool one, but if it were to be done, I think it would make more sense for that to be something that anyone can add (if you see a package that you felt was missing a relevant tag, you could just add it) or remove.
Having said that, I'm not sure how much that really adds (assuming people write pkgdescs well).
All the best,
-Sam
On 2013-07-30 15:40, Ofir Balas wrote:
I feel like a free for all tag system would end with a bunch of trolls spamming the AUR.
Perhaps, and that's one of the downsides of tagging. My point was really that setting a category is a piece of cake for a maintainer to do. It takes about three seconds per package; but adding a bunch of tags could become a pretty time-consuming process which I don't think should be shifted entirely onto the maintainer.
All the best,
-Sam
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com
wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Sorry, didn't realized it .
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
That would be server-side of course!
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I tend to agree... somehow. Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or more categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a consistent state either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to the list of categories to be searched for.
rtf
I agree that tags would be cool but I don't see a real need for it, "yaourt <searchterm>" is usually good enough for me. I think that if tags were to be added it would make sense to make it a feature provided by the AUR web interface rather than the packages themselves, so the tags could be edited in a Wiki/StackExchange-like way without modifying the packages. Then again, trolls.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <
rob.til.freedman@gmail.com>
wrote:
There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
- apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the
PKGBUILD
using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to
stay
[1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages,
since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Sorry, didn't realized it .
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I
suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
That would be server-side of course!
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I tend to agree... somehow. Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or more categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a consistent state either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to the list of categories to be searched for.
rtf
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Emil Lundberg lundberg.emil@gmail.comwrote:
I agree that tags would be cool but I don't see a real need for it, "yaourt
We have them already - just look at the AUR packages page.
They are part of the web search interface - 'search in category' - but doesn't work as expected.
<searchterm>" is usually good enough for me. I think that if tags were to be added it would make sense to make it a feature provided by the AUR web interface rather than the packages themselves, so the tags could be edited in a Wiki/StackExchange-like way without modifying the packages. Then
again, trolls.
Trolls?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <
rob.til.freedman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' > - apparently not a hot topic.
I think most of these packages are created by uploading the
PKGBUILD
using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to
stay
[1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages,
since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Sorry, didn't realized it .
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I
suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
That would be server-side of course!
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I
don't
really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I tend to agree... somehow. Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or
more
categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a
consistent
state either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to
the
list of categories to be searched for.
rtf
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Emil Lundberg <lundberg.emil@gmail.com
wrote:
Then
again, trolls.
Trolls?
What Ofir Balas was talking about.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < rob.til.freedman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner d@falconindy.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <
rob.til.freedman@gmail.com>
wrote: > > There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' > > - apparently not a hot topic. > > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the
PKGBUILD
> using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to
stay
> [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected
packages
> without a category.
This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages,
since
You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context
of
the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Sorry, didn't realized it .
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader
to
impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate
that
packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I
suppose
You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
That would be server-side of course!
one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I
don't
really see myself doing this any time soon.
The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal regarding categories, but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, unmaintainable crap.
I tend to agree... somehow. Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or
more
categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a
consistent
state either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to
the
list of categories to be searched for.
rtf
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org