[aur-general] Huge packages in community

[Chris Brannon]

Xyne wrote:
> I did not know about previous discussions concerning package sizes nor
> do I see how you could reasonably expect me to know about them if I
> were not here for them. I have not read the entire archive of
> aur-general.

Package size might have been discussed in the arguments last November,
but most of that thread was really concerned with the presence of unpopular
packages.

> What defines "necessary" when dealing with community packages? I
> thought core and extra were for "necessary" packages while community
> was for packages that the community wanted. Where does necessity enter

I think [community] is about popularity, moreso than necessity.

Nexuiz has 222 votes.  It more than satisfies the criteria for being in
[community].
IMHO, it belongs in a binary repo, rather than [unsupported].

This argument is about a technical problem, rather than a social
or cultural one.  The debate will go away when the technical problem is
solved.
Packages in [community] have categories, and one of those categories is
"games".  One solution is a "partial mirror" script, which excludes
packages from a mirror based on their category.
This also obviates any perceived need to split [community].
Someone has to write the script, but it seems like a good idea to me!

-- Chris