[aur-general] Discussion period - Moving [community] to use same system as main repos
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 18:05:14 EST 2009
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM, stefan-husmann at t-online.de
<stefan-husmann at t-online.de> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:09:30 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Discussion period - Moving [community] to
>> use same system as main repos
>> From: "Aaron Griffin"
>> To: "AUR general"
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM, stefan-husmann at t-online.de
>> > And if the devels decide to switch from cvs to svn the TUs
>> > would have to alter their tools anyway, regardless of any proposal.
>> > There are goals behind this first step.
>> This is 100% incorrect. We *did* switch to SVN a long time ago and
>> left community in the dust. Community is still (sadly) CVS-based. No
>> one cares about the community tools. That's the big thing here.
>> Everyone just wants to use it. I know *I'm* not going to go out of my
>> way to fix community issues when I don't even use community on a
>> regular basis. If community tracked the official tools, you would get
>> the benefit of work that is done by people who care about the tools.
> Okay, if it is only the move from one tool to another then let 's do it.
> But what I wanted to make clear is that I do not agree with all the
> reasons on the wiki for doing so.
The technical move will, most likely, cause other unforseen things.
The fact that TUs will now have shell accounts and actual access to
the SVN repo will have an impact in the long run.
>> I always thought that Arch users used Arch because they cared about
>> things from a technical point of view. Why did this become a political
>> issue? Can you explain what you see going wrong here?
> I tried to explain that in my first post. This is a community driven
> distro, as
> often mentioned in the forums, and to be that it needs contact between
> users who want to use makepkg and other users who, trusted or not, have
> more experience in packaging. It should not be first goal of a TU to
> become a Developer, but to help people in AUR and to put well written
> and popular packages to a repo.
This argument is always an iffy one. It's community oriented and
ANYONE can make a repo and ANYONE can write a web frontend to do these
things. The fact is that the "community oriented" part of this falls
really short because community is still:
* Using the archlinux server
* Relying on work by the archlinux developers
* Not being worked on, by the community
Take a look at the arch-games repo. That is a *true* community
oriented project. As is kdemod, archlive, and many many others. That
is the community, using what we provide and expanding on it.
The point is: if you want to take the "community oriented" point to
its fullest then put it on a "community backed" server. Where are the
"community based" code contributions?
I really don't understand how this point comes up over and over again,
but rarely does the "community" participates beyond just uploading
stuff. To quote Lawrence Lessig: Participatory culture only works if
> Please do not name something "fun stuff" just because you do not agree.
> It is no fun for me. That is not the way people should discuss things. I
> think I made clear that I am afraid to loose contact to the users. Loui
> said something that led me to the conclusion that this fears may be not
> well founded.
Err, the usage of "fun stuff" is just a phrase. I implied no emotive
meaning there - sorry if you took it the wrong way. Let me rephrase:
Like, let's assume we go through with the proposal. Things are
"decoupled" and all of the other things listed in previous mails and
on the wiki page. What do you lose? What do users lose?
This was intended to be a serious question. It's easy to say "oh, I
don't like that", but I'd like to know why. I want you to _convince_
me. Proof, examples, etc etc
More information about the aur-general