[aur-general] Suggestion of resource on AUR.
shaikadzari at gmail.com
Mon Jan 5 18:22:20 EST 2009
2 week is a short time imho.
It can take some time to contact upstream dev or, like Ronald said, you can
be on holiday.
2009/1/5 Ghost1227 <ghost1227 at archlinux.us>
> 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 potentially lock out the ability to flag the package out-of-date to prevent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?
> Your Fortune...
> I'm encased in the lining of a pure pork sausage!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general