El sáb, 25-04-2026 a las 10:45 +0200, Ralf Mardorf escribió: > The original thread is about "optional" AUR helpers in the installer. > I > think that’s wrong. I myself have used new hardware that required a > kernel patch just to be able to connect to the Internet at all. That > particular extension was available via the AUR. But that’s a step > further. You shouldn’t make everything user-friendly if the policy is > user-centric, for the good and for the bad.
Generally speaking, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I’m not opposed to having an AUR helper available during installation precisely for the reason you mentioned. I think it’s about giving users options and then letting each person act accordingly. If the installer has a separate AUR section with a red banner at the top stating that it’s unsupported, it could break everything, and you’d be acting at your own risk, since the user has already been warned, and from there, it’s every man for himself. Just so you know, this is just my personal opinion. Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
