[aur-general] Plans for packages in community
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 17:17:49 EDT 2008
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:18 PM, stefan-husmann at t-online.de
<stefan-husmann at t-online.de> wrote:
> first of all congrats to Kessia and Paulo and good luck.
> I also have some questions.
> On BBS there was a discussion about having the documentation of the
> TeXlive packages available in some repo.
> There are some up-upstream authors of CTAN-packages who strongly want
> the documentation being made available in every distribution. On the
> other hand Arch politics also say that sdocumentation should be made
> available. So Firmicus asked me if I want to maintain the docus in
> These would be the packages
> 214408939 texlive-core-doc/texlive-core-doc-2008.10646-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 2794585 texlive-games-doc/texlive-games-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 224299 texlive-htmlxml-doc/texlive-htmlxml-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 483826 texlive-langcjk-doc/texlive-langcjk-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 1879228 texlive-latex3-doc/texlive-latex3-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 2582106 texlive-music-doc/texlive-music-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> 10615573 texlive-science-doc/texlive-science-doc-2008.-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> sum (in bytes)
> Exactly the same package sizes would be in community64 for x86_64
> architecture. The packages are arch independent, though.
we don't have an arch independent repo just yet ;)
Well, I don't have anything against having these in community, but I
wonder how many people would install them. I would think the number of
people will be very limited but I may be wrong on that. What you were
saying about documentation being available, yes, but remember
community still is not an official repo so that argument doesn't make
much sense to me.
Anyway, if you think they are usefull and think that quite a few
people will use them, then go for it. Just please make sure you can
maintain it for quite some time as I don't see another TU taking it
> What do you think? Are they too big?
500 Mb for just documentation....who is ever going to install that,
let alone read it ...
> What are the plans about having a repo for architecture independent
It will happen in time IIRC. But don't expect it anytime soon, we
still have to switch to svn as of yet ;)
> Aonther question: there is a package named sage-mathematics in the AUR.
> It has been orphaned, so I updated it. The PKGBUILD downloads an about
> 200 MB tarball, the resulting package has 560 MB and unpacks to more
> than a gigabyte. Moreover, it comes with its own package manager, and
> consists of sub-packages, that partially are already included in Arch,
> i.e. python, maxima, octave...
> Should this go to community?
Please don't. It is just a frontend to access a lot of scientific
programs (for a full list see
http://www.sagemath.org/links-components.html). I think most of those,
at least the important ones are already in extra and community. Better
add the missing ones to community.
> What are your opinions?
If you are looking for some package you are free to look through mine.
If you see something which interests you (except e17 ones on a couple
of others) you can probably take them. Just give me a note in that
> Regards Stefan
More information about the aur-general