Hi, and good evening.
Before I go making a flamebait of my self I just want to say that i
really like archlinux, and how arch is compared to every other linux
distro out there. It is both simple, and powerful. The ABS is a great
way of making packages, again sipmple and powerful. And I like it that
way.
There has been some discussion about TURs, and how to become a TUR and
so on. There is also different repos. We have current, testing, extra,
and unstable. Plus the un-official repos people have (like e17-cvs and
so on) - Personally I just use the e17-cvs repo besides the official
ones. And it works like it should. But if we begin having to many
un-official repos we will experience troubles. a lot (if you ever used
debian with some un-official repos you know what I`m talking about)
My point is this:
I think Arch already have to many repos. And they are a bit confusing
for newbies. Personally I would just like to see something like [base]
and [extra] (extra is maybe not a good name) and [testing-base] for
packages that is under testing and [testing-extra] for packages in
extra that needs testing.
[base] would just contain the basic packages for having a runnable
system. In other words, just the packages you need to get online, and
use pacman to get the rest (I`m not sure if gcc should be there or not,
but that is not the point anyway, not just yet)
[extra] would contain EVERYTHING. As long as somonee have made a
PKGBUILD, someone (or something) should make a package of it and place
it there (ofcurse, at first a package should be in the testing-repo
at first) A package in [extra] should as flexible as possible. Some
packages do conflict, and a commiter will have to do a big job checking
that /their/ package do not conflict with anything.
I also think that not every package needs a maintainer. When someone do
not have the time to maintain a package it should /not/ be deleted by
the repo, but the community would take the responsebility for it. That
does not mean everybody should have cvs/svn access to the repo, but the
maintainer is a mailinglist (like archlinux-tur?)
If the unmaintained package becomes obsolete, and someone
(without a commitbit) have a fix, or a updated PKGBUILD for it, he/she
will bug a report (or maybe use the aur, but i think a bugreport feels
a bit more critical) and someone with the access could update it, and
build it. As I said some time ago, the maintainer is just maintaing the
package, everyone should be able to contact the maintainer to give him a
heads-up on a new version, or to discuss a new ./configure option or
something.
Personally I dont like the "Contributor" in PKGBUILD either. A
contributor belongs in a bug-report, and not in a PKGBUILD. (worst case:
a PKGBUILD will contain 100 contributors) - With that sayd, there is
nothing wrong having two maintainers in a spesific package.
If a TUR have planned vacation, or something like that (he/she will be
offline for x days) he/she must tell the mailinglist.
If a user reports that a maintainer have not responded to his/hers
questions for x days (or months) the TUR must be set as in-active.
Maybe loose his access if not making contact in x more days (or
month)
This maybe look like the way of how FreeBSD does their shit, and I
must admit I like the way FreeBSD solves these kinds of problems.
Some of you may hate it, and some of you may love it. I`m pretty sure
it has both some cons, and pros. Would it be possible to do something
like this for Arch? If yes, who can? Who will help? And what can I do?
Again, I dont hope I pissed to many off. If I did I`m sorry, that was
not how this mail want ment.
--
cso
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,All
I got this issue, detail :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12793
Any Ideas ?
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
