[aur-general] storming in for no reason with crazy ideas

[eliott]

well this thread pretty much died.
Bummer. It seemed like such a good idea to me.
:/

I think I will just blame Loui for killing it.
Loui! Idea killer! boo. hiss!!

;)

On 12/29/08, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:54:38AM +0900, Callan Barrett wrote:
>  > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > > The only downside to this that I see is the loss of the political separation
>  > > of community from the official repositories. There always seemed to be a
>  > > wall between the two, with community being an "unsupported" repository. If
>  > > this repository shows up on the main website, it would seem as though it is
>  > > officially supported. I'm not sure how that affects the developers.
>  >
>  > Personally, I see that as a massive upside. The wall between TUs and
>  > normal developers can be really annoying. Community is already
>  > officially supported anyway since it's enabled by default now, if TUs
>  > are treating community as though it's not official they're treating it
>  > wrong.
>
>
> Well, the TUs don't really have control over Arch Linux defaults.
>
>  I think the idea behind community is that it's a bit of a testing
>  grounds for future official packagers. So quality and usefulness
>  of the repo is important but not as important as core or extra.
>
>  Community is the bridge between unsupported and extra.
>  I believe that correlation should remain pretty explicit as it is now.
>  If community is brought on as another official repo, then the
>  distinction between extra and community is eliminated.
>  Why not just add those packages to extra then?
>
>  What we really need is a system that can adapt to any type of repo,
>  source based, or binary based. AUR is probably the closest to achieving
>  that, but it has a number of limitations.
>
>  We'd overcome that by designing a new system.
>
>  We should be using the same tools for the repos, but I think
>  community should remain a distinct part of AUR.
>
>