[aur-general] TU Application - Seblu
louipc.ist at gmail.com
Sat Jan 22 13:35:25 EST 2011
On Sat 22 Jan 2011 19:03 +0100, Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri 21 Jan 2011 21:38 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2011 09:10 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> >> >Seblu wrote:
> >> >>It looks like a trick question!
> >> >>But if I want to be a good maintainer, I do understand the reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >>and **The trust does not exclude the audit.**
> >> >
> >> >Excuse me for asking but is there anything preventing you from moving
> >> >cairo-xcb to community if you become a TU?
> >> Yes, us.
> >> >As far as i know if you become a TU you can maintain anything you want
> >> >that has more than 10 votes in the AUR.
> >> Becoming a TU means that you become a member in the developement team, a
> >> team in which we trust each other, respect each other decisions, use the
> >> same packaging standards, the same tools as developers etc.
> > I think if the package meets the guidelines then you shouldn't bully
> > someone into not maintaining it. As long as he's providing the support
> > that should suffice. Sometimes we may need to adjust the guidelines, and
> > we decide this as a group through a formal vote.
> Seriously? Since when is adding a package that is already in the repos
> with a different configure flag a good idea? We don't even allow this
> in the AUR...
Seriously. While it's not ideal, it has been done.
I would consider it the same as including bin/lib32 packages just to
include things like wine or whatever. The [community] repo is intended
for this kind of experimentation and freedom.
I think awesomewm has enough of a user base to justify such measures if
a TU is willing to maintain it.
I'm starting to get a bit peeved with people confusing [community] and
[unsupported] with the [core] and [extra] bits.
More information about the aur-general