[aur-general] Should I bring rpm/dkpg to community
schivmeister at gmail.com
Sun Apr 6 12:23:16 EDT 2008
We shouldn't disqualify something just because it's "that something" (:
They're being excluded not because they have relation to "debs and rpms",
but because they fall in the same paradigm as tools like yaourt, well
somewhat at least. We already have - for administrative purposes -
rpmextract and checkinstall.
Wow, this one's received a lot of attention in such a short time. Infamous
is the word, hate is the subject?
On 06/04/2008, Loui <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:45:07 +1000
> Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi TU's,
> > I was wondering what peoples opinions are about putting rpm/dpkg in
> > [community]. They both have a descent number of votes (27 & 33) so
> > people obviously find them useful. Does anyone have objections about
> > their "unArchness" (it is a real word, honest!)? It is what has stopped
> > me moving dpkg so far...
> Hi. I'm not a TU but can I state my opinion too?
> I would say NO. A resounding unequivocal NO to rpm and dpkg.
> Heh. I even have objections about them being in [unsupported].
> Sorry if I interrupted the conversation, but I couldn't resist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general