[aur-general] Orphaning request - chromium-beta and clamav-devel
smartboyathome at gmail.com
Thu Sep 23 19:34:42 EDT 2010
On 09/23/2010 04:30 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 17:38 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> On 24 September 2010 05:34, Brad Fanella <bradfanella at archlinux.us> wrote:
>>>> I don't think what I'm saying here is being clearly understood. :-(
>>> Sorry, I missed the whole Det business. All in all, that kind of
>>> contribution (what Det appears to be doing) is not encouraged, but it
>>> _is_ somewhat of a contribution. From the way I see it, he's just a
>>> concerned party, preemptive about the fate of a particular package.
>> It's fine. :-) I just wanted someone to confirm my sanity!
>> Note to readers: This is not implying that help on the AUR is not
>> appriciated; rather, if you are going to update a package multiple
>> times, please adopt it to make life easier. And use orphan requests as
>> a last resort!
> This is where 'multiple owners' of a package would be useful (I know its
> already been discussed a week ago). Besides the maintainer assigning a
> secondary maintainer, some maintainers could perhaps be given to option
> to say, in effect, "anyone interested can be my second maintainer", but
> that person's maintainership does not affect the maintainership of the
> first maintainer.
> Or something like that...
The reason I've seen against that is that someone could edit a PKGBUILD
in order to include malicious content (not like they couldn't do it
already, though only with new/orphaned packages). Overall I do think
that the ability to allow multiple maintainers would be a good idea
since it allows for group collaboration (similar to how subversion
repositories allow multiple maintainers).
More information about the aur-general