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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-18-2010, 07:43 PM
Ray Rashif
 
Default ?

On 18 November 2010 16:30, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can AUR helpers go into [community]? `burp` and `cower` each have over ten
> votes and qualify, but I never see AUR helpers in binary form so I thought I
> would ask. --Kaiting.

Good that you asked. Otherwise, you could've made a wrong move.

1) AUR build helpers

The AUR is an "unsupported" repository. You should know what that
entails. Supporting such tools indirectly integrates them into the
system, creating misunderstandings which we do not want to deal with.

2) AUR search helpers

This is similar to the above. They communicate with a database which
may be mistakenly assumed to be (semi-)supported.

3) AUR upload/download helpers

Same as well.

So, IMO, it is best that such tools, regardless of the extent of
features, be left in AUR. I myself use slurpy for upload, and rarely
do I use the search/download features
 
Old 11-18-2010, 08:20 PM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default ?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:43:15AM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> So, IMO, it is best that such tools, regardless of the extent of
> features, be left in AUR. I myself use slurpy for upload, and rarely
> do I use the search/download features

I basically agree. The AUR is unsupported and has nothing to do with
Arch Linux or the [community] repository. Imho, it's as if we'd move
dpkg and/or rpm from [unsupported] to [community] (to a certain extent,
at least). Both of them have more than 100 votes but are not moved since
we don't want alternative package managers in the repos. There's no
other convincing reason for that. They are just unsupported.

Moreover, if people use packages from the AUR so extensively that they
need AUR helpers, they should be fine with building one more package
from source, shouldn't they? (Don't take that last sentence too serious.
Please.)
 
Old 11-18-2010, 09:28 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default ?

Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:20:01 +0100
schrieb Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de>:

> I basically agree. The AUR is unsupported and has nothing to do with
> Arch Linux or the [community] repository.

Since when doesn't have AUR anything to do with Arch Linux or
[community] repo? AUR is totally Arch Linux related and can only be
used with Arch Linux. And [community] repo is the repo where AUR
packages go when they got enough votes and a TU interested in
maintaining them.

> Both of them have more than 100 votes but are not
> moved since we don't want alternative package managers in the repos.
> There's no other convincing reason for that. They are just
> unsupported.

AUR wrappers are not added to the repos for security reasons as far as
I know. It's because users may tend to not reading and validating the
PKGBUILDs and install scripts, which can be uploaded to AUR by everyone
without being validated by a dev or TU, if they use such a wrapper.
Keyword: rm -rf /

Maybe they are also not added because neither devs nor TUs can ensure
that they are always working correctly.

I'm not sure if there are other reasons, too.

> Moreover, if people use packages from the AUR so extensively that they
> need AUR helpers, they should be fine with building one more package
> from source, shouldn't they? (Don't take that last sentence too
> serious. Please.)

In this point I agree.

Heiko
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:54 PM
Loui Chang
 
Default ?

On Fri 19 Nov 2010 04:43 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 18 November 2010 16:30, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can AUR helpers go into [community]? `burp` and `cower` each have
> > over ten votes and qualify, but I never see AUR helpers in binary
> > form so I thought I would ask. --Kaiting.
>
> So, IMO, it is best that such tools, regardless of the extent of
> features, be left in AUR. I myself use slurpy for upload, and rarely
> do I use the search/download features

I agree. Keep the AUR tools in the AUR where they belong.
 
Old 11-19-2010, 12:25 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default ?

On 19/11/10 10:54, Loui Chang wrote:

On Fri 19 Nov 2010 04:43 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 18 November 2010 16:30, Kaiting Chen<kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:

Can AUR helpers go into [community]? `burp` and `cower` each have
over ten votes and qualify, but I never see AUR helpers in binary
form so I thought I would ask. --Kaiting.


So, IMO, it is best that such tools, regardless of the extent of
features, be left in AUR. I myself use slurpy for upload, and rarely
do I use the search/download features


I agree. Keep the AUR tools in the AUR where they belong.



Also, this enforces everyone to have some actual idea what their AUR
helper is doing...
 
Old 11-19-2010, 04:13 AM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default ?

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> > I basically agree. The AUR is unsupported and has nothing to do with
> > Arch Linux or the [community] repository.
>
> Since when doesn't have AUR anything to do with Arch Linux or
> [community] repo? AUR is totally Arch Linux related and can only be
> used with Arch Linux. And [community] repo is the repo where AUR
> packages go when they got enough votes and a TU interested in
> maintaining them.

"nothing to do" meaning that it's not part of the official project of
course.
 
Old 11-19-2010, 05:30 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default ?

I made a wiki page with a list of packages to be rebuilt and added a bit
of annotation:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Core_Rebuild_List

I did not use the usual TODO list as I think the order and annotation is
important and the fact that this is not a usual rebuild as there is no
timeline on when it should really be done. But if people want a real
TODO list, I can create it with a link to that wiki page.


Allan
 
Old 11-20-2010, 09:08 AM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default ?

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:30:19 +1000, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>
wrote:
> I made a wiki page with a list of packages to be rebuilt and added a
> bit of annotation:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Core_Rebuild_List
>
> I did not use the usual TODO list as I think the order and annotation
> is important and the fact that this is not a usual rebuild as there is
> no timeline on when it should really be done. But if people want a
> real TODO list, I can create it with a link to that wiki page.
>
> Allan

Thanks for setting this up. In general its a good idea to review and
cleanup our core repo on a regular base.

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
 
Old 11-20-2010, 03:56 PM
Peter Lewis
 
Default ?

Hi fellow TUs,

Are there any objections if I move pigeonhole (dovecot sieve plugin) from the
AUR to [community]?

It's got 9 votes at the moment, but there's a potential problem in that if
pigeonhole isn't built against the installed version of dovecot, mail delivery
breaks. So, the idea would be to keep dovecot in [community] and depend on the
current version of dovecot *only*. This way people can't update their system
in such a way as to break mail delivery.

This make sense to you?

Cheers,

Pete.
 
Old 11-20-2010, 04:22 PM
Florian Pritz
 
Default ?

On 20.11.2010 17:56, Peter Lewis wrote:
> So, the idea would be to keep dovecot in [community]

dovecot is in extra.

Otherwise go for it

--
Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:19 PM.

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