FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-17-2010, 03:17 AM
Kaiting Chen
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start:

1. Integrated distributed version control system
2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should
probably be carefully controlled)
3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same
time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years
ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else)
4. An official client
5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better

--Kaiting

--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Old 11-17-2010, 05:30 AM
Jonathan Conder
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On 17/11/10 17:17, Kaiting Chen wrote:

How can we make the AUR even better?
I think it would be nice if people who click the Notify button get
emailed when the package is updated, and not just when someone comments.
Some maintainers don't say anything when they update.


Jonathan
 
Old 11-17-2010, 05:56 AM
Ng Oon-Ee
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:17 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start:

Won't comment on the others for now, but...

> 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should
> probably be carefully controlled)

No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also
drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down).
 
Old 11-17-2010, 06:02 AM
Kaiting Chen
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

>
> No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also
> drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down).
>

First, I'm still not actually sure what kind of resources Arch Linux has and
if this would be a problem. Second, it would not if those binaries are
hosted elsewhere. There's no way for a vested user to systematically say
right now, "Hey I've compiled this package if anyone wants it." --Kaiting.

--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Old 11-17-2010, 06:10 AM
Ray Rashif
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On 17 November 2010 12:17, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start:
>
> 1. Integrated distributed version control system

0

> 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should
> probably be carefully controlled)

-1

This should _never_ happen. One of the main problems is
non-redistributable binaries, and we'll not be able to prevent that.
The [community] repository serves this purpose. For anything else,
including niche groups, separate projects can be set up.

> 3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same
> time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years
> ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else)

0

> 4. An official client

-1

You should know we do not allow this for a reason. This will never change.

> 5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better

0
 
Old 11-17-2010, 06:11 AM
Kaiting Chen
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

>
> Sure there is... and many people have made available repos:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_User_Repositories
>

Then it would be useful to integrate the AUR with this list by providing a
list of unofficial repositories containing binaries for each package.

Kaiting.

--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Old 11-17-2010, 06:12 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On 17/11/10 17:02, Kaiting Chen wrote:


No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also
drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down).



First, I'm still not actually sure what kind of resources Arch Linux has and
if this would be a problem. Second, it would not if those binaries are
hosted elsewhere. There's no way for a vested user to systematically say
right now, "Hey I've compiled this package if anyone wants it." --Kaiting.



Sure there is... and many people have made available repos:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_User_Repositories
 
Old 11-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Ionuț Bîru
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On 11/17/2010 06:17 AM, Kaiting Chen wrote:

How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start:

1. Integrated distributed version control system


it would be nice and often i wanted to have a history available for build.

note that right now sigurd has limited resources.


2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should
probably be carefully controlled)


-1. for this is community. we don't need another repo managed by community.


3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same
time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years
ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else)


i don't have any opinions on this.


4. An official client


-1. offering official client would mean that we support aur. A API that
can be used by clients would be fine, like we have right now.



5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better



no opinions here.

--
Ionuț
 
Old 11-17-2010, 09:12 AM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:17:33PM -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> 1. Integrated distributed version control system

Why would we need that? Keep it simple. People can setup their own repos
if they want, just as I did [1].

> 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should
> probably be carefully controlled)

Hm, basically the problem with that is that people would need to trust
every user uploading packages to the AUR just as they trust TUs or devs.
There would be no easy way to check if a package contains malicious
code.

> 3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same
> time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years
> ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else)

If something has been obsoleted by something else, people can just
mention that in the comments and/or send a mail to aur-general (as they
always did). TUs will have a look at it then and remove it. That's so
simple.

> 4. An official client

Why? There is a huge number of clients that work well. I personally
prefer to download AUR packages manually, build using makepkg(1) and use
aurploader to upload stuff, some others prefer pacman wrappers, some
others rather use aurbuild/makeaur. Why shouldn't we just let people
decide how to do it? Isn't the "do-it-yourself" approach part of the
Arch Philosophy?

> 5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better

Hm. I'd be fine with that, but it isn't a must. The main problem is,
that it's not easy to implement. We had that discussion before. But if
you want to put much effort in integrating it everywhere in a clean way
and also agree to maintain it, you'd get a yes from me

[1] http://git.cryptocrack.de/?p=archlinux-packages.git;a=summary
 
Old 11-17-2010, 09:13 AM
Dieter Plaetinck
 
Default AUR Improvement Thread

> 5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better

no no no. please no.
ldap is not pretty, and what problem are you trying to solve, anyway..

Dieter
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org