[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
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'
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 out of date" button.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.
> 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.
>> 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.
>>> This is calling for abuse. Almost everybody will consider their problem
>>> 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
>>> properly and requesting orphaning is justified IMO.
More information about the aur-general