[aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering [community]
w9ya at qrparci.net
Wed Dec 3 17:01:54 EST 2008
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Kristoffer Fossgård <kfs1 at online.no>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Why is package popularity judged by votes anyway? I never vote. The
> >> > reason i never vote is because i don't understand why package
> >> > popularity can't simply be judged by download count. I know there's
> >> > been some discussion of this topic earlier but as far as i can recall
> >> > there were no convincing arguments against it. even if some moron
> >> > decides to download his package more times to increase the chance of
> >> > adoption(where would the motivation to do this be anyway? if he simply
> >> > want's to get it in the pacman system for easier maintenance a simple
> >> > guide to make your own repository and add it to pacman would remove
> >> > this incurrence in 99% of cases) the TU's and Devs could still choose
> >> > to not include the package in the repos. This could also largely be
> >> > avoided by only counting i guess certain ip ranges(i'm not an expert
> >> > these things, but i DO know that counting downloads with some level of
> >> > security is a common occurence on the net)
> >> We have mirrors. Almost 100 of them. Feel free to contact them all,
> >> have them write code to count downloads which then sends the stats to
> >> us, and then we can implement this.
> >> What you suggest is absolutely not feasible at all.
> > Quite frankly Aaron, this attitude is not helpful to your case at all.
> > it leads to worse as we have seen between you and me as of late. No one
> > likes to be rebutted in such a manner.
> > Yes, it is NOT feasible, BUT you can **choose** to say this nicely or
> > coarsely.
> Kristoffer, I apologize if this sounded harsh, as Mr Finch seemed to
> interpret it. I did not mean it as such - I meant to say that you were
> overlooking the fact that we do not have full control over our mirrors
> and can only track downloads from one out of *many* servers.
A better attempt. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general