Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

sankrant · 2012-02-12 12:34:52

Hi,
Razor-Qt has well released the 0.4 version which(I think!) is quite stable. To keep up this razor-edge, I think, razor-qt should be pushed into the official repositories. Its' much cooler and lighter window manager all in Qt.
Thanks.

desm0tes · 2012-02-12 12:52:43

wiki wrote:

Q: How many votes does it take to get a PKGBUILD into [community]?
A: Usually, at least 10 votes are required for something to move into [community]. However, if a TU wants to support a package, it will often be found in the repository

I guess, it only needs a TU to maintain the package right now...Razor has >100 votes

sankrant · 2012-02-12 12:59:19

How can one get into the mantainer's ear?:/

desm0tes · 2012-02-12 13:03:48

SPAM THEM!

jk, I guess, it's a good idea to raise attention in the forums - the more users the better and the higher the chance for a TU to decide to maintain it.

sankrant · 2012-02-12 13:12:33

That may take ears... um years, RIGHT???? but by thinking positive, I am with you.

ngoonee · 2012-02-13 01:33:43

desm0tes wrote:

jk, I guess, it's a good idea to raise attention in the forums - the more users the better and the higher the chance for a TU to decide to maintain it.

The forums are actually the worst place to get the devs/TUs attention.

And its not ever actually going to get in the repo until a dev/TU uses it, maintaining packages you don't use isn't much fun at all (just look at aur-general and the emails dropping packages).

ssri · 2012-02-13 03:06:30

Does it really need to go into the official repos? I mean, overall it is a pretty short compile time.

sankrant · 2012-02-13 06:18:49

ssri wrote:

Does it really need to go into the official repos? I mean, overall it is a pretty short compile time.

The above is not appropriate stance!! I mean (you mean) many packages have even lesser compile time, so shift them to aur!!! I think it is high time for it to be seen into. :\

Last edited by sankrant (2012-02-13 06:32:03)

sankrant · 2012-02-13 06:26:40

ngoonee wrote:

desm0tes wrote:
jk, I guess, it's a good idea to raise attention in the forums - the more users the better and the higher the chance for a TU to decide to maintain it.
The forums are actually the worst place to get the devs/TUs attention.
And its not ever actually going to get in the repo until a dev/TU uses it, maintaining packages you don't use isn't much fun at all (just look at aur-general and the emails dropping packages).

The question is basic - What makes the package pushed in the official repos?What is the criteria?
If I am correct-
The dependencies should be officially supported.
The package should be popular.
Pls think about it.

PS-: What forces are required to push the TU to use a certain package???

karol · 2012-02-13 09:33:28

sankrant wrote:

PS-: What forces are required to push the TU to use a certain package???

A TU must want to maintain it. You can't force anyone to do that.

ngoonee · 2012-02-13 09:44:39

sankrant wrote:

The question is basic - What makes the package pushed in the official repos?What is the criteria?
If I am correct-
The dependencies should be officially supported.
The package should be popular.
Pls think about it.

There's a third one - a dev/TU must want to do it.

Actually, the second one isn't required as well (see the AUR page on the wiki).

desm0tes · 2012-02-13 10:15:15

ngoonee wrote:

desm0tes wrote:
jk, I guess, it's a good idea to raise attention in the forums - the more users the better and the higher the chance for a TU to decide to maintain it.
The forums are actually the worst place to get the devs/TUs attention.
And its not ever actually going to get in the repo until a dev/TU uses it, maintaining packages you don't use isn't much fun at all (just look at aur-general and the emails dropping packages).

Guess you got me wrong: What I wanted to say is:
Spread the word that there's a new DE in town, and that it's a really good one - for QTaholics, for low ressources and for high customizing (and lots of other reasons).
The more use it, the better [and (less important to me) the higher the chance, there's someone among them, who's willing and allowed to maintain it for official repos.]
Pushing dev's is no option to me.

Last edited by desm0tes (2012-02-13 10:16:36)

Llama · 2012-02-13 12:33:33

If one cannot force a TU -- maybe, one can promote a razor-qt developer to one?..

SS4 · 2012-02-13 12:36:58

Nothing stopping somebody from making an unofficial repository to provide builds?

Llama · 2012-02-13 12:39:26

SS4 wrote:

Nothing stopping somebody from making an unofficial repository to provide builds?

The dearth of unofficial repositories is one of the killer features of Arch, at least to my taste.

x33a · 2012-02-13 13:25:01

@ sankrant, if you take a look here

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php

You'll see dozens of packages with hundreds of votes, but they aren't in the official repositories.

I understand you love razor-qt, but you can't force it on the maintainers.

Hell, i love mplayer2, and recently it was removed from community. But, since we have the great aur, i can still build it quite easily.

You are new to archlinux, and you need to understand how things work here. The maintainers are already overburdened.

ismaelvc · 2012-06-01 14:50:36

ssri wrote:

Does it really need to go into the official repos? I mean, overall it is a pretty short compile time.

while this is true, for you, in my underpowered laptop it took a while, plus most of this suggested apps:

https://github.com/Razor-qt/razor-qt/wi … plications

must be compiled also (since most are in AUR), in the end it does take some time to make it work with the same functionality as lxde for example, but lxde is now in a package group, it makes it a lot faster! It is a shame no TU wants to take care of this, as of today it works great on my old laptop, but I'm still compiling apps to make it fully functional, I've spent two days and not finished yet (got other things to do also), but I'm pretty happy with my setup so far, and I'm running it from a 4GB usb! (installed no usb-live) And in my experience (I'm no expert here lol!) using AUR is not always reliable, one may get errors and while I like to learn, I'd like packages so popular could be included in the official repos more easily, If any of you know of a community repo for razor-qt please let us know, I've found none.

I also tryied installing trinity 3.5.12 with no succes but that is another story, I can't imagine how long it would take for me to compile the whole latest version 3.5.14.

splashy · 2012-10-18 20:04:13

I would also enjoy razor-qt to be is official repository.
I do not use it but I have to admit this DE is very fast, easy to configure and qt of course. Razor-qt deserve to be officaly supported as lxde, enlightment, openbox...)

ANOKNUSA · 2012-10-20 01:16:32

[community] isn't exactly for "officially supported" packages. It's merely a place where software common enough in the Arch community--but not common to major distributions/widespread userspaces--is maintained by a Trusted User. If that TU reaches a point where maintaining that software is no longer feasible, e.g. lack of time or few commits upstream, the package gets moved back to AUR and left to someone else to maintain. In other words, the best way for it to get into [community] would be for a Razor-Qt user to become a TU .

ATmega328 · 2012-11-02 21:16:48

Can somebody help me with this https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=151947

Last edited by ATmega328 (2012-11-02 21:17:13)

bernarcher · 2012-11-02 23:08:02

ATmega328 please don't do this. Never hijack a thread!
Opening a thread of your own almost always suffices.

nomorewindows · 2012-11-03 00:35:44

I kind of envisioned the AUR to be a backports area.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-02-12 12:34:52

Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#2 2012-02-12 12:52:43

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#3 2012-02-12 12:59:19

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#4 2012-02-12 13:03:48

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#5 2012-02-12 13:12:33

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#6 2012-02-13 01:33:43

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#7 2012-02-13 03:06:30

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#8 2012-02-13 06:18:49

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#9 2012-02-13 06:26:40

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#10 2012-02-13 09:33:28

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#11 2012-02-13 09:44:39

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#12 2012-02-13 10:15:15

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#13 2012-02-13 12:33:33

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#14 2012-02-13 12:36:58

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#15 2012-02-13 12:39:26

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#16 2012-02-13 13:25:01

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#17 2012-06-01 14:50:36

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#18 2012-10-18 20:04:13

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#19 2012-10-20 01:16:32

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#20 2012-11-02 21:16:48

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#21 2012-11-02 23:08:02

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

#22 2012-11-03 00:35:44

Re: Put Razor-Qt in the official repository.

Board footer