[aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
kaitocracy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 22:35:00 CET 2010
> Though a distributed VCS and not a centralized VCS is not really that
> necessary I use git mainly because it is fast, not because it is
> distributed. So I don't see why a distributed VCS would be any worse
> than a centralized one. The AUR is never going to be merging from
> another repo anyways... right? It would basically be read-only and
> might not even be publicly available as a repository so I don't see
> what difference it makes.
> You could even go off on a tangent and have AUR maintainers be able to
> push to their own git repository on AUR ... muah.
A distributed VCS is nice because it allows someone to clone the repository
and then commit to their local copy without necessarily pushing to a master
repository. For example I download a PKGBUILD for package 'x'. I want to add
support for LDAP, so I add --enable-ldap to ./configure. Now I commit my
changes to my local clone. Then if the PKGBUILD on AUR changes, it is not
necessary for me to repeat the process. I simply 'git pull'
(s/git/whateverDVCSyouwant/) and the updates are merged for me. I don't
believe a centralized VCS is capable of this.
LDAP makes everything so much more complicated! I avoid it whenever
That is nonsense. With LDAP support one could for example query the details
of a package "$pkgname" using the command:
There's no way you can tell me that that's not awesome. --Kaiting.
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
More information about the aur-general