aur voting complaint

Moo-Crumpus · 2010-05-06 19:06:34

I am dissatisfied with aur voting. A lot of packages have a bunch of votings. Aur guidelines say, a package would need at least 10 votes. Take songbird, which recieved nearly 500 votes, and still is not in community. If you ask, why, you'll probably be answered "'cause of heavy development". Heavy development did not avoid udev to be a standard package, neither grub, nor kde, etc. I understand that -git or -svn packages don't make sense in community, but 'stable snaps' will do.

For my taste it is time to talk about aur voting - and either follow aur guidelines or change them. Otherwise it has a taste of arbitrariness.

Kind regards

Last edited by Moo-Crumpus (2010-05-06 19:07:09)

wonder · 2010-05-06 19:12:57

songbird linux port was dropped upstream.

to me on topic, if a trusted user wants to invest time to maintain a package, then he will move it. personally i don't want to move packages just for the love of moving them and then to not invest time maintaining.

Last edited by wonder (2010-05-06 19:13:55)

drcouzelis · 2010-05-06 19:30:10

Moo-Crumpus wrote:

Aur guidelines say, a package would need at least 10 votes.

Are you talking about this? http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … nity.5D.3F That's very interesting. I didn't know about that guideline.

I use about 20 or 30 packages from the AUR. They are either AUR helpers (like "packer" and "clyde"), or are pretty obscure (like "noiz2sa"), or aren't updated very often (like "seq24"). So, I don't mind that they are not official Arch packages.

Since Songbird support for Linux was discontinued, is there another package in the AUR that you want in the official Arch Linux repositories? What is the benefit of having a package in the official Arch Linux repositories, instead of in the AUR?

ngoonee · 2010-05-06 23:10:15

Nothing moves unless a TU is interested. The '10 votes' ALLOWS a TU to move it without discussing with everyone else on the AUR mailing list, if a package has 2000 votes but no TU is interested it stays in the AUR.

Allan · 2010-05-06 23:40:02

If people want more packages in the [community] repo, then we need more TUs. So if you have the skills apply and maintain a few. There are a lot of people around here I would happily welcome as a TU.

Regarding Songbird, even before it was not developed for Linux, there were issues with distributing the icons due to the license. However, unlike Firefox, they never provided alternate icons (it was always going to be fixed soon...).

fukawi2 · 2010-05-07 01:52:01

You can always start providing your own binary repo for those who CBF building from AUR -- as ngoonee said, if no TU's want to maintain it, then it's better to stay in the AUR than be (horribly) outdated in the official repos.

Ghost1227 · 2010-05-07 01:57:17

If you have a specific package that you think should be moved to official repos and no one has expressed immediate interest in it, you're always welcome to contact me. I pick up most of the 'strays' anyway and don't mind picking up packages that are worth official support.

ngoonee · 2010-05-07 04:01:07

Ghost1227 wrote:

I pick up most of the 'strays' anyway

Oh the many ways in which that could be read....

Moo-Crumpus · 2010-05-07 07:13:42

Lately, I was installing arch on a laptop, to have it as a source for larch, and fumbled with several packages that partly where available in aur, additionally in a separate repository - like larch itself - while I had to use yaourt to fetch clyde, fumble with pkgbuilds to replace git:// with http:// to pass firewall and proxies etc. Fetching packages from aur can be a plague under certain conditions. As many packages I needed had highest votes in aur, I wondered why they are not in community. I started to ask some maintainers, they had no answers, too.

I don't have specific packages in mind - apart from clyde. If moving a package from aur to community simply depends on finding a trusted user who likes to adopt it, then why couldn't aur's guideline just earnestly name it, using clear words? Wouldn't this limit confusions?

tomk · 2010-05-07 09:30:49

It's a wiki, maintained by the community. In general, that means its an excellent source of relevant information. However, it also means that there is no guarantee that the information is correct and up to date.

Feel free to modify the relevant section(s) of that page yourself, or any other page that you believe needs it.

Allan · 2010-05-09 07:05:07

Moo-Crumpus wrote:

I don't have specific packages in mind - apart from clyde.

AUR helpers will never be in [community].

Moo-Crumpus · 2010-06-01 17:31:03

aha, by your decree?
:~

Allan · 2010-06-01 21:34:50

By the decree of all developers and TUs.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-05-06 19:06:34

aur voting complaint

#2 2010-05-06 19:12:57

Re: aur voting complaint

#3 2010-05-06 19:30:10

Re: aur voting complaint

#4 2010-05-06 23:10:15

Re: aur voting complaint

#5 2010-05-06 23:40:02

Re: aur voting complaint

#6 2010-05-07 01:52:01

Re: aur voting complaint

#7 2010-05-07 01:57:17

Re: aur voting complaint

#8 2010-05-07 04:01:07

Re: aur voting complaint

#9 2010-05-07 07:13:42

Re: aur voting complaint

#10 2010-05-07 09:30:49

Re: aur voting complaint

#11 2010-05-09 07:05:07

Re: aur voting complaint

#12 2010-06-01 17:31:03

Re: aur voting complaint

#13 2010-06-01 21:34:50

Re: aur voting complaint

Board footer