[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released

Jesse McClure jmcclure at cns.umass.edu
Wed Jul 9 08:55:40 EDT 2014

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:44:56PM +0200, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> On 09/07, Nowaker wrote:
> > ... I don't think differentiating between out-of-date, broken or
> > whatever is useful for anything.
> The problem is that sometimes a package is out-of-date but can't be updated
> for various reasons.

I don't see the relevance to the point this seemed to be a response to.
That package may be hard/impossible to maintain, true - but separate
flags for 'out of date', 'broken', 'wont compile' wouldn't aid that
situation any.  In fact they might make it worse.

I'd be concerned with having several such flags because most real life
situations may not fit cleanly into one or the other flag category.  So
some users may flag the difficult to maintain package as "out of date",
others might flag is as "broken", etc.  Maintainers could even then use
a passing-of-blame strategy to avoid doing anything: they can remove an
"out of date" flag with the justification that it is not *technically*
out of date, etc.

If one flag just signifies that something is wrong that requires the
maintainer's attention, it should be easier for users and for

aka 'Trilby' on forums/AUR

More information about the aur-general mailing list