[aur-general] TU appliance Jens Maucher (defcon)

Ali H. Caliskan ali.h.caliskan at gmail.com
Sun Apr 5 12:45:58 EDT 2009

forgive me but, I believe there was a reaction going on before the TU
discussion started, due to zattoo, which I strongly believe was the key
element in Jens unfavourable situation. Again, in order to have a
discussion, one should be encouraged, rather than terrified of being
vulnerable. No offence, but I strongly suggest that you focus on Jens right
now, and find a way to improve the guidelines for "strict" package policy.
And of course, it's so much waste of time for nothing, and this is why I
decline of becoming TU. Sorry guys, but the makepkg concept isn't really
that much organized at all. I think both sides should improve themselves,
which is a fair deal, and fair way of advancing Arch.

Kind regards,

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Stefan Husmann
<stefan-husmann at t-online.de>wrote:

> Hello,
> I think Jens and me got some thoughts about the reasons now, why the
> appliance failed. I would have expected this discussion in the discussion
> period, which was quite calm 8I now see that you guys expected some answers
> from Jens and me).
> But now I think it is time to calm down a bit and to answer some questions.
> Yes, the zattoo-software is bad, and the symlinking is dangerous. But on
> the on hand discussion was about TU appliance, not about moving zattoo to
> community.  The latter will never happen, I think also the license forbids
> this. On the other hand, if we follow the arch way, we do what upstreamers
> want us to do, without much patching. And I really do not see a way to get
> zattoo working without much googling and searching libraries from third
> sources. And on i686 zattoo works surprisingly well with that bad symlinks
> (no known way for x86_64).
> install -d is preferable over mkdir -p, but also in extra are packages,
> that do not fullfil this point. As Angel said, I think this was a minor
> issue inthe rejection.
> So let us now stick moree to the other Appliance we have these days. again
> thank you for th discussion.
> Regards Stefan

More information about the aur-general mailing list