[aur-general] Git based AUR package repo

Amitav Mohanty amitavmohanty01 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 7 04:08:00 UTC 2017


To the suggestion of using links to diff/patch and using email or comments,
my only counter-argument is that how would you organize them. I am sure we
all have seen multiple versions of packages in AUR, e.g. version X.Y.Z and
version "abc-git" to separate stable versus latest. Those cases can be
handled using git branches without requiring separate AUR packages.

I understand that I am used to a model of organizing code that probably
does not make sense here. Just seeking opinion.


On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:25:04 -0800
> Amitav Mohanty via aur-general <aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have a proposition for AUR package builds. Currently, if a package goes
> > out of date, it can be flagged so but we need the maintainer to update
> it.
> > So, if a non-maintainer wants to send the update the package build, (s)he
> > will need to create a new package. My proposition is to have a git based
> > system where a package's related files can be maintained.
> It's already git based.
> >So, the following
> > benefits can be targeted:
> > - to update a package build, one does not need to copy the old one and
> > create a new package; sending a PR will suffice
> You can already do PRs, just use email.
> > - the maintainer model can be improved. A core set of maintainers or an
> > active and trusted set of maintainers can review such PRs if the
> maintainer
> > is not available.
> There is already co-maintainers.
> > - even if no reviewer is available, the modified package build can be
> > released as non-approved one and users will still be able to use the
> > package build.
> That sounds like chaos.
> >
> > I would like to know thoughts about this proposition.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Amitav

More information about the aur-general mailing list