well this thread pretty much died. Bummer. It seemed like such a good idea to me. :/
I think I will just blame Loui for killing it. Loui! Idea killer! boo. hiss!! ;) On 12/29/08, Loui Chang <louipc....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:54:38AM +0900, Callan Barrett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <seb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The only downside to this that I see is the loss of the political > separation > > > of community from the official repositories. There always seemed to be a > > > wall between the two, with community being an "unsupported" repository. > If > > > this repository shows up on the main website, it would seem as though it > is > > > officially supported. I'm not sure how that affects the developers. > > > > Personally, I see that as a massive upside. The wall between TUs and > > normal developers can be really annoying. Community is already > > officially supported anyway since it's enabled by default now, if TUs > > are treating community as though it's not official they're treating it > > wrong. > > > Well, the TUs don't really have control over Arch Linux defaults. > > I think the idea behind community is that it's a bit of a testing > grounds for future official packagers. So quality and usefulness > of the repo is important but not as important as core or extra. > > Community is the bridge between unsupported and extra. > I believe that correlation should remain pretty explicit as it is now. > If community is brought on as another official repo, then the > distinction between extra and community is eliminated. > Why not just add those packages to extra then? > > What we really need is a system that can adapt to any type of repo, > source based, or binary based. AUR is probably the closest to achieving > that, but it has a number of limitations. > > We'd overcome that by designing a new system. > > We should be using the same tools for the repos, but I think > community should remain a distinct part of AUR. > >