[aur-general] TU without [community] maintaining?

[Lex Rivera]

I think it's wrong way. Some of packages just install old versions, they
can be adopted by users and updated easily. Take a look at helium, for
example. Fully working pkgbuild, only pkgver needs to be changed to get
it up-to-date. 
Firstly we must take care about really obsolette packages. For example -
sim-im. SVN snapshop, even when we have normal SVN pkgbuild and normal
stable pkgbuild. So sim-im must be removed. And so on. When we finish
cleaning up obsoletes, we can start cleaning up orphans. 
Here is my vision how this must work:
1. There is addittional button on pkgbuild's page - Report obsolete.
2. If user clicks this button, notify will be sent, for example, to
aur-mods maillist
3. Mod will remove this packages
4. Package must be moved to some sort of archive - there will always be
human mistakes. That archive can be cleaned, for example, every month.
Or not cleaned at all - pkgbuilds are pretty small :)
5. When user try to create new PKGBUILD with pkgname = name of
previously removed pkgbuild, maybe we must print some notice and link to
old pkgbuild. Old projects can be revived sometimes.

On 03/02/10 19:55, Lauri Niskanen wrote:
> On 02/03/2010 07:48 PM, Lex Rivera wrote:
> > The main reason why a asked for it is amount of crap in AUR. I have my own repo, maybe
> > that's why i'm not interested in [community]. But AUR have huge list of
> > orphaned, outdated, obsolette packages. Most of them can be deleted,
> > since they have no use now. I see them nearly everyday, and... Well, i
> > think you catch that. AUR needs moderators. AUR must be clean.
> > Sorry for my bad english =(
> > 
> > On 03/02/10 12:31, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Chris Brannon <cmbrannon79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >>>> I think it is a good idea. We could create the "AUR moderator" position
> >>>> instead of calling it "Semi-TU".
> >>>
> >>> This is a fine idea, and I see no harm in it.
> >>
> >> Im in favour of this, my unique concern is about how hard will be
> >> creating another level of permission in the AUR, and some rules about,
> >> if a semi-tu can orphan packages from TUs or TU-Dev, figuring out that
> >> part, and assuming that will have an approbation, we will start
> >> writting patches, so this can be a "slow" process, (2 months or so if
> >> it's aproved? plus the time of discussion?).
> >>
> >> Let's see what happens!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Angel Velásquez
> >> angvp @ irc.freenode.net
> >> Arch Linux Trusted User
> >> Linux Counter: #359909
> >> http://www.angvp.com
> 
> Let's start the cleaning here:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&do_Orphans=Orphans&detail=0&C=0&SeB=nd&SB=v&SO=a&PP=25&outdated=on
> 
> Maybe we should just delete all packages with no votes and that have
> been orphaned.
> 
> -- Ape <Lauri Niskanen>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20100203/ac728e92/attachment-0001.bin>