[aur-general] storming in for no reason with crazy ideas
louipc.ist at gmail.com
Mon Dec 29 17:44:06 EST 2008
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:54:38AM +0900, Callan Barrett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only downside to this that I see is the loss of the political separation
> > of community from the official repositories. There always seemed to be a
> > wall between the two, with community being an "unsupported" repository. If
> > this repository shows up on the main website, it would seem as though it is
> > officially supported. I'm not sure how that affects the developers.
> Personally, I see that as a massive upside. The wall between TUs and
> normal developers can be really annoying. Community is already
> officially supported anyway since it's enabled by default now, if TUs
> are treating community as though it's not official they're treating it
Well, the TUs don't really have control over Arch Linux defaults.
I think the idea behind community is that it's a bit of a testing
grounds for future official packagers. So quality and usefulness
of the repo is important but not as important as core or extra.
Community is the bridge between unsupported and extra.
I believe that correlation should remain pretty explicit as it is now.
If community is brought on as another official repo, then the
distinction between extra and community is eliminated.
Why not just add those packages to extra then?
What we really need is a system that can adapt to any type of repo,
source based, or binary based. AUR is probably the closest to achieving
that, but it has a number of limitations.
We'd overcome that by designing a new system.
We should be using the same tools for the repos, but I think
community should remain a distinct part of AUR.
More information about the aur-general