> On 12/30/2010 12:36 AM, Brad Fanella wrote: > >On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Nathan Owens <ndowens....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>On 12/29/2010 08:56 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: > >>> > >>I know I am not a TU, though I figured I would put in my "two-cents". I > >>agree it may be bad for first time users to have an AUR helper if they > >>don't understand there is risks. Though this gave me a idea, that may > >>not be liked or approved of, maybe if we split AUR into either packages > >>with the most votes or maintainers that are concidered trusted or been > >>around a while, from the vice versa. Kind of a trusted of the > >>unsupported packages. Going along with the assumption that the idea > >>would work and approved of, create a AUR helper, that would be in the > >>community repo, that will only pull from the trusted AUR. > > > >Wouldn't it be easier just to add more TUs than to attempt what you > >proposed? When would we begin to draw the line between "trusted" and > >"untrusted" users? > > > >It's not a bad idea by any means. I'm just questioning the practicality of > >it.
On Thu 30 Dec 2010 00:44 -0600, Nathan Owens wrote: > I know what you mean. Well I would THINK that maybe it could be determined > how long the user has been active though their activity of the packages and > look at the quality of the packages the user has adopted/created and maybe, > assuming there is a system that would monitor the out-of-date packages, if > the member maintains the packages by updating them in a decent amount of > time. Possibility something similar to this as to determine a regular user > is trusted. Please bottom post. Anyways, what you're speaking of is probably a feature that is best implemented on the client side. You could probably hack something up that interfaces with the current AUR though. The RPC will return a list of packages by a named maintainer via msearch. See http://aur.archlinux.org/rpc.php