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

w9ya w9ya at qrparci.net
Thu Dec 4 14:03:31 EST 2008

I would rather do this here on the mailing list. I do not have a wiki
account and have never entered info into one before.

FURTHER, while a good idea to summarize, there are new positions and so
forth every day. And more people are speaking out in opposition to this
proposal every day. And more people are asking for details on the metrics.
And more people are asking for creating better metrics before considering
this proposal.

So it may be premature to offer up a summary today. It is my understanding
that we have through next Sunday for a discussion period. Is that correct ?

Bob F.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Drew Frank <goodgrue at archlinux.us> wrote:

> There as been a lot of good discussion, and it appears there are more
> or less two "sides" here.  Perhaps it would be a good idea for people
> to try to summarize the argument of the "opposing side", to see if the
> two groups really understand each other's positions.  I've seen a
> bunch of good points made by proponents of either side, but there's a
> danger that they're being lost in the mailing list deluge.  A concise
> list of of the pros and cons of the various courses of action might be
> a helpful tool, too -- editable by all on a wiki page, perhaps.
> Just an idea :).
> Drew
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Kristoffer Fossgård wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
> >>>>> downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>> probably lying.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > The two systems we already have "offer a representation of which packages
> > are popular" but there is much debate about how good that representation
> is.
> >  A third is really not going to help....
> >
> > Allan
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20081204/a63c8bd3/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the aur-general mailing list