[aur-general] Huge packages in community
cmbrannon at cox.net
Sun May 3 09:01:36 EDT 2009
> 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
Package size might have been discussed in the arguments last November,
but most of that thread was really concerned with the presence of unpopular
> 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
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
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!
More information about the aur-general