On 12/29/10 at 10:57pm, Loui Chang wrote: > On Thu 30 Dec 2010 03:56 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: > > Am Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:43:46 +0200 > > schrieb Evangelos Foutras <foutre...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Personally, I don't feel strong either way. As it was explained to me > > > on IRC, cower doesn't include any building or installation > > > functionality, it only searches for packages, downloads them, and can > > > also check for updates to installed, unsupported, packages. > > > > But when I see how many times people ask for adding packages from > > base-devel like gcc or pkg-config to depends and how many people don't > > read the AUR and ABS wiki pages I'm not sure that such tools should be > > in the repos. > > I think this is a matter for TUs and devs to discuss and decide on > together. Since [community] is defacto official people may start to > expect more support from the [unsupported] repo. I can imagine that TUs > and devs wouldn't want this perception to prevail among users. > > Even if the program doesn't build or install, it still interfaces with > the unsupported repo, and since it's in community, people may perceive > the packages in that repo as officially supported. > > That's how it appears to me anyhow. >
The big problem is users, users, and users in my point of view. With about ~3 or more years spending in #archlinux, they always seem to not understand AUR and use tools like yaourt to autoinstall aur packages and then when shit breaks, they complain in #archlinux. Now that cower is in [community] I don't complain about it that much, it's a tool that only checks the info of aur packages and downloads the tar balls. It doesn't autoinstall it, the user still has to now how to use makepkg and pacman to install it and I am happy with that. But actually I don't see the point of having like 3 sort of cower apps in [community], one is enough ;) Jelle van der Waa
