[aur-general] Suggestion of resource on AUR.
ghost1227 at archlinux.us
Mon Jan 5 18:11:42 EST 2009
Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On 1/5/09, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 06:06:03PM +0100, Mathias Burén wrote:
>>> Agreed, but two months? Isn't that a bit too long? One month is good
>>> in my opinion.
>> A month would be alright. I'd prefer two weeks though. Hah!
>> I'd like to avoid using a cron job to do this.
>> Any ideas or patches for such an implementation are welcome at
>> aur-dev at archlinux.org
> You know a typical holiday takes longer than two weeks (well, mine at
> least). So I'm against anything shorter than 1 month, which IMO is
> maybe already a bit short.
> There may also be instances that packages are wrongly flagged out of
> date, or packages can't be updated for some reasons. How do you want
> to implement these?
I agree that this is generally a good idea, although two weeks does seem
a bit short (especially around the holidays). As for instances where a
package can't be updated, perhaps a new flag could be implemented for
these situations? I've had a few of those situations myself and they can
be frustrating, so I suggest the possible addition of a "pending update"
flag or similar. Something that could give the maintainer the ability to
mark a package in such a way as to notify the community that although
the package is not functional, it is being looked into. Additionally, it
could potentially lock out the ability to flag the package out-of-date
to prevent packages in situations like this from being auto-orphaned if
the discussed auto-orphan idea is implemented. Thoughts?
I'm encased in the lining of a pure pork sausage!!
More information about the aur-general