On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:50:54PM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > Moving this discussion from aur-general. I posed the question: > > I just wanted to clear this up with the other TUs: Is it ok for [community] > packages to have optional deps on AUR packages or not?
I would definitly pull all optional deps to [community]. There are several reasons for this: 1. Good PKGBUILD quality, because the maintainer of the package that has the opt-dep controls also the opt-dep in community and can enforce a good PKGBUILD. 2. Less Confusion. If we start adding AUR optional-dependencies to our official packages this would confuse people, even if we declare it in the PKGBUILD. 3. Control. If the maintainer is busy or in vacation another maintainer of [community] can takeover his job for some days/weeks, without moving package ownership like we often have in the AUR. 4. More Security. AUR packages mostly don't include all security features. 5. Time. The user doesn't need to recompile it by theyself. 6. It's a clear statement that we don't support the AUR. 7. It's easier for the user. Best regards, chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
