Am 14.01.2011 10:45, schrieb Peter Simons: > Hi guys, > > the AUR user palmfron has recently flagged the package "haskell-haskcore" > out-of-date, because the PKGBUILD is broken. It cannot be compiled, > because it depends on other packages that no longer exist: > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20383 > > Now, there is disagreement among the members of the ArchHaskell team about > whether it's okay to flag that package out-of-date. Some argue that the > package is *not* out-of-date, because the published version 0.1.0.4 is the > latest one available, so the package cannot be updated to a newer version. > These people argue that flagging a package out-of-date just because it's > broken is not alright. > > Others say that it's perfectly alright to flag that package out-of-date, > because it's *broken*, so clearly the PKGBUILD does need updating to be > useful. > > Is there some sort of consensus among AUR maintainers how to deal with > that kind of situation? If an AUR package is current, so to speak, but it > doesn't compile, then what should be done with it? > > This issue is of some importance for us, because the 'arch-haskell' user > has published an approximated 500 packages on AUR that are broken, i.e. > these packages cannot be built because of unsatisfiable dependencies: > > https://github.com/archhaskell/habs/issues#issue/4 > > I'd appreciate any advice that you could offer. > > Take care, > Peter > Hello,
IMHO a package that is broken deserves other kind s of love than just an out-of-date flag. There should be a comment with at least some hints what may cause the problem. Out-of-date-flags are, what the name suggests, hints that there is a newer version. But some maintainers seem to see that differently. They want a comment _and_ the out-ofdate-button to be pressed, if the package is broken. Do not know why. To me this is annoying. Regards Stefan
