[aur-general] Circle that A (WAS: Re: Someone hug sergej)
afrowildo at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 10:12:05 EST 2008
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:09:09 -0000, Aaron Griffin
<aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, kludge <drkludge at rat-patrol.org> wrote:
>> i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the
>> open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty
>> disappointed if the authority to determine who participates and how was
>> handed to a smaller, less-accountable elite.
> To be clear, the debat has nothing to do with the AUR, only the
> community repo which is run by the TUs, who are already a "smaller,
> less-accountable elite"
Although this email is in response to a comment posted by Aaron Griffin,
it is intended for all those who appear to have a problem with the current
system which, from what I have gathered in the few days I have beena part
of this list, is the presence of supposedly unpopular packages in the
Now, I only discovered Arch Linux a few months ago, and due to my busy
schedule at the moment, will not be able to sit down with it and build a
fully function system with which I can replace Ubuntu on each machine I
use, so am rather unfamiliar with this system of 'voting' for my favourite
packages, but can say that I have not encountered such a system with
Ubuntu while using apt-get, and have yet to encounter it during my perusal
of the pacman man page, which leads me to believe that such a system would
be web based.
Now this to me is a rather inefficent system and, in my opinion anyway,
completely defeats the purpose of downloading and installing package using
a package manager from with a terminal session. Now I have not voted for
any packages after downloading them, however the key term here is "AFTER
DOWNLOADING THEM". I still use them, but that isn't reflected in the
established system. Now if there exists a system for monitoring the number
of downlaods using pacman, then I apologise for wasting peoples time with
my ignorance. If, however, such a system does not exist, then the current
voting statistics cannot, under any circumstances, be used to judge the
suitability of a package to remain within a certain repository. To do so
would undermine the community oriented nature of [community], and also the
key principles of open-source, where a minority of users have decided that
certain packages should be moved/replaced/deleted/whatever, even though
said packages may in fact be widely used.
If resources are an issue, as has been mentioned, then instead of puching
for the removal of these packages, shouldn't you be pushing for the
expansion of the server's disk space instead, or whatever resource is
currently at a premium. The whole point of an open-source operating system
is that ANYONE can freely distribute software under the GNU license
agreement for the OS in question, even if they are the only person using
Is was my understanding that anyone could apply to become a TU, and that
there has only ever been a single application rejected in the past due to
the dishonesty of the applicant, so I don't really see how the TUs can be
classed as some sort of ruling class:
On Wed 03 Dec 2008 04:59:04 AM GMT, "w9ya" <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> I assume you are not aware that anyone can apply and become a TU.
> Because of that, if anyone thinks something needs to be done that
> >remains undone, then the answer is to simply ask to become a TU. Within
> a short time, if you are ready with some few examples of your >work, you
> will become one. We have only turned down one applicant and that was for
> lying to us.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:15:06 AM GMT, "w9ya" <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> I ALSO do not understand you when you say "..you (the TU's) have proven
> that you are not capable of getting the best results from the >resources
> you got." How can that be so ? What you go on to say I do not
> understand. If it is not being used right because there are >packages
> YOU wish to see placed in it, then that means we need more TUs. I am
> left to assume that you are willing to become a TU and help >with the
> effort. If not, then the rest of what you say becomes merely a rant.
If I'm not mistaken, that sounds like an invitation for those who have a
problem with the current system to step up and do something about it. So
why all the fuss? [community] is not [core] or [extra], and should not be
treated as such (now if I'm talking rubbush here, then by all means,
please correct me). These two are the official repositories, so to speak.
It is upon these repositories that Arch is based, and so they should
reflect the principles of minimilism and simplicity the so define the
system. [community] is slightly different, in that anyone can add software
to it without having to be an official member of the development team, so
it is natural that there are going to be more packages there than in the
other two, and allowances should be made for this.
Now this is simply the way I personally am viewing the situation, and may
not necessarily be shared by others, but it is nonetheless my opinion as
an Arch user and I feel that, just like the supposedly unused packages, it
should be shared with anyone who is interested in hearing it.
More information about the aur-general