-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:27:33 +0100 > Subject: [aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering > [community] > From: Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > <aur-general@archlinux.org>
> Hi all, > > As part of the TU meetings it was decided to post the proposal for > restricting packages entering [community] here for discussion before > voting. Here is the current wording: > > [proposal] > > * Only "popular" packages may enter the repo, as defined by 1% usage > from pkgstats or 10 votes on the AUR. > > * Automatic exceptions to this rule are: > - i18n packages > - accessibility packages > - drivers > - dependencies, including makedeps and optdeps > - packages that are part of a collection and are intended to be > distributed together, provided the primary part of this collection > satisfies the definition of popular > > * Any additions not covered by the above criteria must first be > proposed on the aur-general mailing list, explaining the reason for > the exemption (e.g. renamed package, new package) at which point a > general consensus from the TUs will be reached. TUs with large numbers > of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected. > > * TUs are strongly encouraged to move packages they currently maintain > from [community] if they have low usage. No enforcement will be made, > although resigning TUs packages may be filtered before adoption can > occur. > > [end proposal] > > > So, go ahead and discuss. Especially focus on the wording and regions > that people would feel need clarification before I call for a formal > vote. In particular, I think the process for addition of packages > which do not meet the popularity criteria needs to be defined better, > so any ideas there would be appreciated. > > Any further additions to do with cleaning the current package load in > [community] for low usage package is a separate issue and will be > discussed at a later date. > > Allan > > Hello, sorry, something must be wrong with my IRC-environment or with my knowledge about it. Again I did not manage to join. So let me discuss the proposal here. First I have some questions. What are accessibility packages? Things like ssh? > - packages that are part of a collection and are intended to be > distributed together, provided the primary part of this collection > satisfies the definition of popular To whose intention do you reflect here? I guess to upstreamer's intention? I think of the texlive-doc packages here I maintain in community. >TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected. Do you mean that? Or should it be"packages of TUs with large numbers of "non-popular" packages are more likely to be rejected."? Some thoughts. - If we encourage people to drop packages that are not popular, we should also encourage them to take packages in "usupported" that _are_ popular to "community". - What if there are popular third party repos with packages? Should this give an impact on our decision to put these packages to community or not? - The benefit for the user of packages being distributed in binary form varies. I.e. a package with low complexity or no compile time could easily stay in AUR even if it is popular. Just my 2 cents, regards Stefan