[aur-general] Packages in Community and votes.

w9ya w9ya at qrparci.net
Mon Nov 10 12:54:14 EST 2008

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:31:17AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> > I do NOT normally comment here and certainly NOT with the tone I am about
> to
> > use. But you guys (plural) are attempting to dictate binding discussions
> > without first doing your own due diligence. Or you are asking me and
> others
> > to do your due diligence for you? This is, of course, very troubling to
> me.
> > It should be to other TUs too.
> Past discussions are less relevant because they don't have the same
> effects as the problems we face today.

An assumption on your part. I doubt it is true either IF the problem is
server overload of some kind. Arch has often had those problems in the past,
and IN FACT it was a strain at first to accomodate the user repos.

> > It is NOT a given that the voting statistics are accurate or even
> > "..somewhat accurate". MANY reasons have been given in the past why such
> > accuracy is not possible under the current voting scheme, so I again ask
> you
> > to do your due diligence, i.e. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do a search on
> > previous discussions about this that have taken place (repeatedly) over
> (at
> > least) the last couple of years.
> Nothing in life is a given, but we make conclusions based in empirical
> data. This is how decisions are made to improve things. It's what drives
> advancement.

But this data is NOT empirical at all. To say as much is to ignore what the
methods arr and how it is collected and from what percentage of the whole
and so forth.

> > I know for a *FACT* that many of my packages are used, some VERY heavily
> and
> > by MANY users and yet have NO votes. I will give you here but two of the
> > several reasons;
> > 1 - I maintain an offshoot version of archlinux, derived from faunos,
> called
> > "shackstick". It is used and is becoming quite popular amongst the ham
> radio
> > community. It is packaged as a whole and the user does NOT download
> packages
> > or even is part of the arch linux community, so NO votes are taken. Yet
> it
> > uses over 25 of my packages that would seem to otherwise be without
> votes.
> If your community cares about the packages that are provided in
> [community] they should vote. Voting wasn't put in the AUR for absolutely
> no reason. If someone doesn't vote for a package then I would assume
> that it isn't all that important if the package is in community or not.

Well, again another history lesson for ya; It was added ONLY as a guide
becuase some TUs wanted to knwo at least something. It was WELL understood
that it was a lousy gauge of ANYTHING specific and could NEVER be
empirically used.

> If your users don't even download the packages then there is no point
> for those packages to be in community.

Well if fact I get comments about them from direct arhc linux users, so that
only goes to point out how lousy the voting system is if it is suppose to
say if the progrma is being used.

> > 2 - Since the votes are NOT reflective of downloads, and for the above
> > reason downloads are NOT reflective of the numbers of users, and FURTHER
> > many users do NOT vote, there can be NO correlation between votes and
> usage.
> > It isn't even a rough estimate.
> It is a rough estimate. Please review the pkgstats results.

Rough is an interesting word. It covers a lot of ground. So, above you said
it meant something empirical. Exactly what does a rough estimate mean, and
how does that meaning relate to it being empirical ?

> Furthermore you're making it sound like moving a package from
> community is some kind of travesty, like it will disappear.
> No. You can still maintain it in unsupported, and you can still run your
> own repo like the fine folks running the arch-games repo.
> Also, maybe you should recommend server upgrades to your offshoot distro
> so you're able to host your own niche repo instead of telling Arch to
> serve people who don't even want to participate in the community.
> Again, you do NOT understand what the community system is or what it was
suppose to accomplish. Please read some of the earlier email threads on
this. I sincerely ask you to educate yourself about the reasons this thing
has evolved to the system it is currently. It is NOT merely a bunch of repos
with users deciding what is to become a binary package. If it was, that
would be so much LESS than what it offers now. And it arch would become just
another distro, no better or worse, merely different.

The excellent wiki usage AND the excellent free-flowing community system are
what make arch uniquely better. And good participation in a wiki can be had
in other ways, but the community system is truly a wonderful free-market
style system.

What you suggest is a restriction for want of a better server support.
IMnsHO, this will be a bad reason to do the kinds of things you suggest.

Best regards;

Bob Finch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20081110/2d0b29f3/attachment.htm>

More information about the aur-general mailing list