[aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering [community]

[Allan McRae]

stefan-husmann at t-online.de wrote:
> Hello,
> sorry, something must be wrong with my IRC-environment or with my
> knowledge about it. Again I did not manage to join.
> So let me discuss the proposal here.
>
> First I have some questions.
>
> What are accessibility packages? Things like ssh?
>   

I mean packages for people with disabilities. 

>> - packages that are part of a collection and are intended to be
>> distributed together, provided the primary part of this collection
>> satisfies the definition of popular
>>     
> To whose intention do you reflect here? I guess to upstreamer's
> intention? I think of the texlive-doc packages here I maintain in
> community. 
>   

For this I am meaning groups of packages that are "split" upstream.  e.g 
all the alsa components.

>> TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be
>>     
> rejected.
> Do you mean that? Or should it be"packages of TUs with large numbers of
> "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected."?
>
>   

Yeah.  It should say "Proposed additions from TUs with large numbers...."


> Some thoughts. 
> - If we encourage people to drop packages that are not popular, we
> should also encourage them to take packages in "usupported" that _are_
> popular to "community".
>   

That would be the idea.

> - What if there are popular third party repos with packages? Should this
> give an impact on our decision to put these packages to community or
> not?
>   

I don't think that should be a big consideration.  But I suppose if you 
only want to bring in 1 package out of 2 and a third party repo has one...

> - The benefit for the user of packages being distributed in binary form
> varies. I.e. a package with low complexity or no compile time could
> easily stay in AUR even if it is popular. 
>
>