[aur-general] packages without category

[Emil Lundberg]

I agree that tags would be cool but I don't see a real need for it, "yaourt
<searchterm>" is usually good enough for me. I think that if tags were to
be added it would make sense to make it a feature provided by the AUR web
interface rather than the packages themselves, so the tags could be edited
in a Wiki/StackExchange-like way without modifying the packages. Then
again, trolls.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen <
rob.til.freedman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > > [1], 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.
> >
> > Sorry, didn't realized it .
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> That would be server-side of course!
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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,
> > unmaintainable crap.
> >
>
> I tend to agree... somehow.
> Some categories makes sense,  others  could/should be tagged to one or more
> categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
>
> Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a consistent
> state
> either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to the
> list
> of categories to be searched for.
>
> rtf
>