On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:15:23PM +0100, Kristoffer Fossgård wrote:
Why is package popularity judged by votes anyway? I never vote. The
reason i never vote is because i don't understand why package
popularity can't simply be judged by download count.
Votes are a conscious approval of a
Could not create incoming directory:
/srv/http/sites/aur/unsupported-temp/68181228389746
Please one TU update
kmenu-gnome.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
BETTER THAN THE VOTE SYSTEM.
That's what I thought. Even monitoring a single download
2008/12/4 Amanai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Could not create incoming directory:
/srv/http/sites/aur/unsupported-temp/68181228389746
Please one TU update
now fixed by wizzo
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Trusted User
Linux User: #430842
Ronald van Haren wrote:
On 12/4/08, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
BETTER THAN
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Allan McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kludge wrote:
what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits
the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to
impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough*
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:09:09 -, Aaron Griffin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, kludge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the
open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty
disappointed
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
BETTER THAN THE VOTE
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Callan Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Jiyunatori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there. Because of this message, I'm directly writing to you :
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-December/003066.html
I can't update
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Loui Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel
needs to be done ?
They've been said already but here are some for you:
1. Clean up
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:28:35 -0800, Andrea Scarpino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/12/4 Amanai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Could not create incoming directory:
/srv/http/sites/aur/unsupported-temp/68181228389746
Please one TU update
now fixed by wizzo
works now, thank you
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Loui Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal
in
fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.
I have been
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD ENOUGH _and_
BETTER THAN THE VOTE
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your all
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do this all the time as well. One possible solution: if an I use
this! message were sent to the stat-tracking server automatically
from pacman upon installing a package, it would not be much of an
extension to send a Oops,
Aaron Griffin wrote:
Keep that in mind - the people
doing work *for you* to make your lives easier, want some moderation
on this system before it gets out of hand. People will *always* abuse
a system with no rules.
wow, can't believe this thread is still running on this subject line.
back to
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Loui Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be
possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL
run across those
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do this all the time as well. One possible solution: if an I use
this! message
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Drew Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do this all
Kristoffer Fossgård wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:52 AM, bardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Kristoffer Fossgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Your all missing my point. I never said counting packages by
downloadrate is a perfect solution but that IT IS GOOD
There as been a lot of good discussion, and it appears there are more
or less two sides here. Perhaps it would be a good idea for people
to try to summarize the argument of the opposing side, to see if the
two groups really understand each other's positions. I've seen a
bunch of good points made
I would rather do this here on the mailing list. I do not have a wiki
account and have never entered info into one before.
FURTHER, while a good idea to summarize, there are new positions and so
forth every day. And more people are speaking out in opposition to this
proposal every day. And more
should i include them in the source= array and provide md5 sums for them?
-kludge
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, kludge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
should i include them in the source= array and provide md5 sums for them?
-kludge
no, you should only add a line saying
install=${pkgname}.install
Ronald
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you guys put
the same vigor and effort into promoting a fundraising effort, you would
have the resources to host all manner of binary packages MUCH AS
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=60262
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Daenyth Blank
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:01, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
When I voice an opinion I am told I am making wild claims, yet your
entire
proposal is based on a claim that things will get out of
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM, kludge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Finch wrote;
IF you are not set up to accept money without paying taxes, then YES you
SHOULD fix that immediately. And I mean next week. I can think of NO
GOOD reason for you to be paying taxes on funds donated for such
Aaron Griffin wrote:
It's not even about resources anymore. We spent over $2000 of donation
money to fix our resource issue. I don't want to see it happen
again... quite frankly, we can't afford it. Couple this with the fact
that we NEED to produce source tarballs for packages (INCLUDING those
w9ya wrote:
So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And
IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the
current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me
for money I said I would donate.
well, i wouldn't want to push any
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And IMHO
it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current
proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me for money I
said I
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, kludge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
w9ya wrote:
So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And
IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the
current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me
for
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And
IMHO
it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the current
proposal from
oops ... I just hit reply since I thought your nessage to me about not
sending to two places was also itself not sent to two places. Sorry about
that.
Bob
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM, w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okey dokey !!
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM, kludge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
w9ya wrote:
So, yeah, now is the time for Aaron to consider such an approach. And
IMHO it is something to consider BEFORE asking us to consider the
current proposal from Allan/Lou. HECK , I can't even get Aaron to ask me
for
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Sergej Pupykin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
core,extra,community sources weights ~12G.
Dropping games from community saves ~1G and substracts ~0.5G from sources.
Also we may change archiving method to [pkg|src].[tar.bz2|7z] ))
Are games specifically quite low in
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 18:21, Callan Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Sergej Pupykin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
core,extra,community sources weights ~12G.
Dropping games from community saves ~1G and substracts ~0.5G from sources.
Also we may change archiving
Hello,
We have mirrors. Almost 100 of them. Feel free to contact them all,
have them write code to count downloads which then sends the stats to
us, and then we can implement this.
What you suggest is absolutely not feasible at all.
That's too bad, I wanted to suggest counting of downloads
40 matches
Mail list logo
