[aur-general] Remove ardour3-svn
allan at archlinux.org
Mon Dec 20 22:22:58 EST 2010
On 21/12/10 08:30, Xyne wrote:
> Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use
>> yet. See message from the author below.
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Paul Davis<paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
>> Date: 2010/12/20
>> Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3
>> To: Bernardo Barros<bernardobarros2 at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Fabio<capoeirista at arcor.de>, linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros
>> <bernardobarros2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul..
>>> it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
>> that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are
>> at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a
>> crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so
>> much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!)
>> on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this
>> morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch
>> build scripts ... not so much
> I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this.
> Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD
> themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the
> various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but
> I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the
> package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to
> the latest version with a single command.
> I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is
> strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the
> upstream mailing list.
> You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install
> message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
> This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or
post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...).
Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has
seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch
are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems.
They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour
package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
More information about the aur-general