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

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Wed Jan 7 10:22:45 EST 2009

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:18:08AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> The distinction is exactly the same as now. community repo is managed
>>> by a community of Trusted User, while extra is managed by arch
>>> developers.
>>> It is still a bridge between unsupported and extra. The only
>>> difference is that on the implementation level, it would be closer to
>>> extra, while now it is closer to unsupported. But on the usage level,
>>> it is always in the middle.
>>> And community can always be a testing ground for future official
>>> packagers : as eliott said, it is even easier to switch from a
>>> technical point of view if community is managed just like core/extra.
>> Well with that, I was answering the desires of some people to have
>> community thrown in the same lot with core and extra. Like having
>> packages listed from the main website rather than aur.archlinux.org
>> for example.
> I would like to hear Aaron's opinion on whether [community] packages should
> appear on the main web page rather than the AUR if/when we go for the single
> repo-tools route.
> The advantage of having the [community] packages shown on the main page is
> less maintenance.  It also separates the AUR from any repo (which I
> personally think is a good thing...)
> The disadvantage, is [community] becomes "overly official".

I don't really have a problem with it. If community updates begin to
dwarf updates for other repos, we may simply have to list more
packages, or add multiple RSS feeds, but from a general standpoint, I
don't really know any cons here.

More information about the aur-general mailing list