[aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

William Di Luigi williamdiluigi at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 14:35:26 UTC 2016

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I don't know an evidence that Det does or does not. What I noticed is that users considered the comments as a discussion and support forum and I don't know how to value Det comments.

Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from
something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det?

>> I agree with taking a look at packages (I would add a "Flag as
>> compromised/virus" link, which has a similar effect to "Flag package
>> out-of-date").
> Less is more...

Not always. I think adding a "flag as compromised" button could be
useful in this case. The current "flag as out-of-date" already serves
a "warning" function for the users, but it can be easily removed by a
malicious maintainer. The "compromised/virus" flag I'm talking about
should be removable only by a TU/dev. This also means that while a
wrong out-of-date flag is not a big deal, a wrong compromised flag
should yield harder consequences, in order to avoid abuse.


More information about the aur-general mailing list