[aur-general] Package Request and/or TU Application
kevr at 0cost.org
Thu Aug 19 20:24:52 UTC 2021
I do like Giancarlo's idea because it would really future proof a lot
of Python libraries we use; we could just lock versions in
requirements.txt. It just feels a bit odd that we're splitting between
two different package managers, especially because we still have to
depend on several arch packages working properly regardless of the
I think I'm going to in fact commit that in as a new route for Python
dependencies within a few days; it'll at least remove a dependency on
unmaintained packages in the future.
That being said, I'd still vouch for the package in question for
[community], as it's quite useful and seems like it's been stable
for long enough in upstream.
Regardless, thanks for taking a look and replying so quickly!
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:14:08PM +0300, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote:
> On 2021-08-19 23:05, Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general wrote:
> > We shouldn't postpone upgrading the aurweb server because of this. If
> > some TU wants to maintain it, fine. But, for the actual deployment, I
> > wouldn't use repo packages.
> How you choose to deploy is only a little bit related. I can see the
> argument for wanting to pick libraries that are packaged by Arch if nothing
> else than just for the sake of the developers working on the project or test
> deployments or whatever.
> Even if the devops guys decide it's easier to maintain a deployment another
> way (as for example they do with GitLab that does not dogfood Arch's own
> packaging) that's fine. If it will serve the purposes of aurweb developers
> I'm happy to expedite it being in [community] and maintain it as the latest
> available upstream release.
- kevr @ Libera
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the aur-general