[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
I mean packages for people with disabilities.
- 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.
For this I am meaning groups of packages that are "split" upstream. e.g
all the alsa components.
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."?
Yeah. It should say "Proposed additions from TUs with large numbers...."
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".
That would be the idea.
- 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?
I don't think that should be a big consideration. But I suppose if you
only want to bring in 1 package out of 2 and a third party repo has one...
- 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.
