[arch-dev-public] [RFC] archive.archlinux.org

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Sun Dec 20 00:22:35 UTC 2015

On 20/12/15 10:09, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On dim., 2015-12-20 at 09:32 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 20/12/15 09:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>>> I plan to move back agetpkg to extra next week if there is no objection.
>> I am assuming agetpkg is for dealing with archived packages (which are
>> unsupported).  The reasonv for not including AUR helpers in the repos
>> was that they give what appears like supported access to unsupported
>> content.  Why should agetpkg be considered any different?
> I think there is a difference between outdated official packages and non-
> official packages. The last may not have the level of quality, trust and be
> harmful for a system. So preventing helpers to be in official repository make
> sense.

Outdated packages may be very harmful to your system - there are plenty
with critical bugs in them.  So the argument is that we trust these to
be harmful to your system?

> In the other hand, agetpkg helps to retrieve previous official packages in
> order to troubleshoot or rescue a broken system when they are missing in
> /var/cache/pacman/pkg/X.
> I think what is not supported is non-official packages and reporting issues
> about non up-to-date packages, not downloading an outdated one.

The argument about AUR helpers is that we should not provide supported
access to unsupported content, because this makes the unsupported
content appear supported.  I don't see the different here.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list