On Sat 22 Jan 2011 19:03 +0100, Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Loui Chang <louipc....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri 21 Jan 2011 21:38 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > >> On 01/21/2011 09:10 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: > >> >Seblu wrote: > >> >>It looks like a trick question! > >> >>But if I want to be a good maintainer, I do understand the reasons. > >> >> > >> >>and **The trust does not exclude the audit.** > >> > > >> >Excuse me for asking but is there anything preventing you from moving > >> >cairo-xcb to community if you become a TU? > >> > >> Yes, us. > >> > >> >As far as i know if you become a TU you can maintain anything you want > >> >that has more than 10 votes in the AUR. > >> > >> Becoming a TU means that you become a member in the developement team, a > >> team in which we trust each other, respect each other decisions, use the > >> same packaging standards, the same tools as developers etc. > > > > I think if the package meets the guidelines then you shouldn't bully > > someone into not maintaining it. As long as he's providing the support > > that should suffice. Sometimes we may need to adjust the guidelines, and > > we decide this as a group through a formal vote. > > Seriously? Since when is adding a package that is already in the repos > with a different configure flag a good idea? We don't even allow this > in the AUR...
Seriously. While it's not ideal, it has been done. I would consider it the same as including bin/lib32 packages just to include things like wine or whatever. The [community] repo is intended for this kind of experimentation and freedom. I think awesomewm has enough of a user base to justify such measures if a TU is willing to maintain it. I'm starting to get a bit peeved with people confusing [community] and [unsupported] with the [core] and [extra] bits.