[aur-general] Policy on abandoned projects?
snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 19:04:14 EST 2010
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Erik Johnson <palehose at gmail.com> wrote:
> "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to
> persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." --Carl Sagan
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 05:14:15PM -0500, Ranguvar wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 15:26, Erik Johnson <palehose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What is the policy with regard to projects that appear to have been
>>> abandoned? For instance, no matter what distribution I run, I find
>>> myself compiling spellutils for its excellent "newsbody" program, which
>>> I use in mutt to feed aspell only the body of the message instead of the
>>> full message (including quoted replies, headers, etc). However, for some
>>> time now the homepage of this project has been defunct, and the
>>> developer has been unreachable. The project does not have a
>>> sourceforge/github/etc location from which the source code can be
>>> retrieved, I was only able to find the source code myself thanks to a
>>> couple different source code archives, which I am not sure if I can rely
>>> on 100% to keep the source available.
>>> What can I do to get this project into the AUR? I have no problem
>>> writing a PKGBUILD, I just need to find an acceptable way of making the
>>> source available, and I'm not sure if there's a protocol for this
>>> that AUR package maintainers typically follow.
>>> Many thanks,
>>> "For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to
>>> persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." --Carl Sagan
>> Personally, I would say that for an AUR package, a < 100% reliable
>> source is fine.
>> However, what I've done for high-demand packages (like my bin32-wine
>> when [extra] does not update quickly),
>> is to talk to people and find someone who would be kind enough to host.
>> Actually though, I think www.omploader.org works for PKGBUILDs. If it
>> does, it is both fast and reliable.
> Thanks. I'm working on the PKGBUILD right now. Is it necessary to
> include packages which are part of base or base-devel as makedepends? I
> didn't see any information about this in the PKGBUILD manpage.
More information about the aur-general