[aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering [community]
kfs1 at online.no
Thu Dec 4 13:16:05 EST 2008
>On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo <ilbardo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård <kfs1 at online.no>
>>> Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
>>> downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
>>> BETTER THAN THE VOTE SYSTEM.
>> That's what I thought. Even monitoring a single download mirror could
>> be enough, if it's not an obscure and unpopular one. At least
>> gathered data would be statistically *relevant*, even though not
>> accurate. We can think of a single mirror as a good approximation of
>> the whole community, excluding i18n/l10n packages, which are highly
>> dependendt on the physical location of the mirror itself.
>Guys. I have to point out a flaw in this reasoning. We are talking
>about packages _entering_ community. Not remaining there. For packages
>not in community, there is no download except from the AUR website. We
>*could* in theory, track this, but there's 3 or 4 different ways one
>can download things from the AUR
There's one way technically. You download the tarball. Where are all the
other ways? Even if there are why is this even relevant? It's not like
a reasonably good-enough download counter is hard technically to
accomplish(feel free to scold me if you think it is).
>Again, just downloading a package does not mean I like it or use it.
>As someone previously stated: if you tell me you've never installed a
>packaged, tried it, and removed it because you didn't like it, you're
Your still not getting it. The system doesn't have to be 100% perfect,
it only has to offer a representation of which packages
are "popular". that's it. we don't need to know how many "downloads"
are really "conscientious" because the large majority of them will be.
(ps: i'm sorry if i'm a bit harsh in this email but i haven't slept
much today :))
More information about the aur-general