On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:59, Allan McRae wrote:
>>> Any other people want to comment on this? Any TUs feel keeping AUR pages
>>> for [community] packages is necessary?
>>>
>>> A
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:25:59 -0500
> Loui Chang wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 06:42, Loui Chang
>> > wrote:
>> > > I think the categories would be removed.
>> >
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 15:52, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> what about tags instead of categories?
We already have groups, provide descriptions and URLs.
Are there/would there be people using features such as categories, tags, etc.?
Are there people who want to focus on writing tools to support the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:59, Allan McRae wrote:
>> Any other people want to comment on this? Any TUs feel keeping AUR pages
>> for [community] packages is necessary?
>>
>> Allan
>>
>
> I'd like to keep them. Especially if we get smooth no
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:59, Allan McRae wrote:
> Any other people want to comment on this? Any TUs feel keeping AUR pages
> for [community] packages is necessary?
>
> Allan
>
I'd like to keep them. Especially if we get smooth non-destructive
transitions moving a package from community to unsu
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:25:59 -0500
Loui Chang wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 06:42, Loui Chang
> > wrote:
> > > I think the categories would be removed.
> >
> > I think categories are completely useless and should be remove
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 06:42, Loui Chang wrote:
> > I think the categories would be removed.
>
> I think categories are completely useless and should be removed from
> unsupported too. AFAIK, only [community] is really maintaine
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 06:42, Loui Chang wrote:
> I think the categories would be removed.
I think categories are completely useless and should be removed from
unsupported too. AFAIK, only [community] is really maintained as a
tree.
--
Geoffroy Carrier
> Categories should be removed as well as AUR entries for [community]
> packages. The former isn't all that useful in my opinion, and any
> comments/suggestions/bug reports would be better off placed in FS where we
> can track them more easily.
>
+1. I'm agree with Evangelos.
We'll have more "cont
Allan McRae wrote:
Loui Chang wrote:
I think the categories would be removed.
Any other people want to comment on this? Any TUs feel keeping AUR
pages for [community] packages is necessary?
Allan
Categories should be removed as well as AUR entries for [community]
packages. The former
stefan-husm...@t-online.de wrote:
-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:59:10 +0100
Subject: [aur-general] Community and the AUR (Was: Vote - Moving
[community] to use same system as main repos)
From: Allan McRae
To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
-Original Message-
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:59:10 +0100
> Subject: [aur-general] Community and the AUR (Was: Vote - Moving
> [community] to use same system as main repos)
> From: Allan McRae
> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
>
> Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan
12 matches
Mail list logo
