But in other way, packages without arch field are usually very, very old.
2008/5/2 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Callan Barrett wrote: > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Lukáš Jirkovský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Just my 2 cents: I think, that packages without arch=() field should > > > be also removed. > > > > > > > > > > That seems like a bit much. There's probably a lot of good packages in > > the AUR without this field and it's not like it's that hard to add it > > in yourself. > > > > > > > > I agree we should not remove packages on the basis of the arch field. We > don't want to delete potentially useful packages. > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you use a public channel instead of the TU channel, so that > other Arch users can participate and why not adopt packages live. Not the > Arch one though, it's too crowded. Maybe you could create a temporary > channel for the event... > > > > > > > > > > Agree with this, why not let as many people as possible get involved > > to get the most done. > > > > > > > > OK. Given I know very, very little about IRC, does someone else want to > make an IRC channel. Either that, or we could ask if it would be OK to use > the archlinux-bugs (or whatever it is called) channel which tends to have > very low traffic levels apart from bug days. > > Allan > > > >
