[aur-general] packages without category
d at falconindy.com
Tue Jul 30 15:47:15 EDT 2013
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
> > > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <rob.til.freedman at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
> > > > - apparently not a hot topic.
> > >
> > > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD
> > > using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay
> > > , it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages
> > > without a category.
> > This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, since
> You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of
the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to
impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that
packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
> > you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I suppose
> You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
> > one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't
> > really see myself doing this any time soon.
> The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal
> regarding categories,
> but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless,
More information about the aur-general