On 10/29/19 1:22 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > Em outubro 29, 2019 14:09 Eli Schwartz via aur-general escreveu: >> >> Correction: there is "a blacklist", but it's only used to prevent >> namespace conflicts for users who attempt to upload packages named the >> same pkgname as a package in the binary repos. >> >> It is correct to say we have never attempted to blacklist names which >> "shouldn't be allowed to exist as packages because $person dislikes the >> name". >> >> "aur" isn't inherently a bad name, I could conceive of it being the name >> for a package which installs the aur.archlinux.org software, though >> "aurweb" would be an even better name. ;) >> > > Indeed, a there are two blacklists, one that blacklists repo packages, so > they are not uploaded to the AUR. That one is updated automatically. > > There's a second blacklist, but that one has no way to update, other than > through the DB, hence my confusion.
Hence my confusion too... I did not realize we had another table. > I think we should probably start adding a few packages to that list. Makes sense, we have the functionality so we might as well use it. The question is what criteria to use. :/ -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
