[aur-general] [community] repository cleanup

Ng Oon-Ee ngoonee at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 00:56:17 CET 2010

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 18:28 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-11-16 17:13:47 +0100: 
> > 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.

No danger of that happening here. The devs use Arch, why would they move
out stuff they consider important? And between them, what they consider
important is probably almost everything in a 'base' install for the big
distros (Ubuntu, Fedora etc.), because importance also depends on
user-base. Higher user-base means its more likely a dev uses it =).
> 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.
I think that's only common practice for packages where noone really
wants them, the initial dev has left/become inactive, so its in a state
of limbo, but when devs have the time they look at the 'out-of-date'
flag and help out.

More information about the aur-general mailing list