[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released

Steven Honeyman stevenhoneyman at gmail.com
Tue Jul 8 12:27:45 EDT 2014

The trouble is there are too many people that don't (or can't) think
about *why* something might not be working. It's often the users'
fault :)

Suppose someone sets ld.gold as their default linker "because the
internet told them it was better"... and then tries to compile


On 8 July 2014 12:30, Attila Bukor <r1pp3rj4ck at w4it.eu> wrote:
> There are two types of comments imho: a) discussion about how the
> package should be improved, etc; b) the package doesn't build in some
> cases, which *needs* attention from the maintainer.
> Even in case the maintainer is subscribed to notifications, they can
> miss these b) kinds of comments if there are lots of discussion no the
> package. For this there should be a "flag not working" next to the "flag
> out of date" button. Just my two cents.
> r1pp3rj4ck
> On 07/05/2014 09:59 PM, Steven Honeyman wrote:
>> Wouldn't this push more work towards the AUR maintainers though? What
>> actually happens when someone requests a package is to be orphaned?
>> Can the package maintainer "un-request" it by doing something?
>> I guess I just assumed (like the ML previously) that a bunch of people
>> would get an email with the request in it - which nobody really wants
>> to see!
>> Definitely agree on the comment+checkbox idea being a bad one. As you
>> said, everyone's problem would demand attention.
>> Steven.
>> On 5 July 2014 19:39, A Rojas <nqn1976list at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Carl Schaefer wrote:
>>>> How about adding a "needs attention" checkbox when submitting a comment
>>>> that, when checked, would email the maintainer and raise an "attention
>>>> requested" flag on the package display page?  The maintainer could check
>>>> an "AR reset" checkbox when submitting his/her own comment, which would
>>>> clear the flag.
>>>> Carl
>>> This is calling for abuse. Almost everybody will consider their problem
>>> to
>>> be worth of attention. Maintainers should be subscribed to be notified of
>>> comments in their packages. If they're not, then they're not doing their
>>> job
>>> properly and requesting orphaning is justified IMO.

More information about the aur-general mailing list