[aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
hollunder at lavabit.com
Tue Nov 16 18:28:40 CET 2010
Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-11-16 17:13:47 +0100:
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:08 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > My point in short:
> > Arch is great as long most packages you need are binaries and only some
> > are from source.
> > If Arch requires you to build lots of packages from source it's the
> > worst of both worlds.
> Have you seen the list of software getting moved? I've only seen one
> person describe them collectively as 'many important' packages. Almost
> none of which I've heard of before, of course....
> This thread started with the assertion that 'many important' packages
> are getting moved to the AUR. I believe this assertion to be false, as,
> obviously, do the devs. Historically from reading [arch-dev-public] the
> devs have been careful to continue maintaining packages none of them use
> if its seen as crucial to a large majority of users. None of the
> packages being moved fit these criteria. At all.
I see your point. I looked through the [extra] ->  list yesterday or
so and was a bit shocked at first until I saw that most of the packages
I considered important would be maintained in community.
However, what I tried to point out is what would happen if a binary ->
source trend develops.
One other thing: The lists are based on orphans. My impression was that
it's common practice among developers to adopt -> update -> orphan.
Based on this I wonder whether it's sensible to create lists of removal
candidates based on orphans.
More information about the aur-general