On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:53:13PM -0500, Loui Chang wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 06:47:32PM +0100, Angel Velásquez wrote: > > The explain that bfinch shows is not the case, as I said (second time > > this day), there is an amount of packages (aspell,i18n related) which > > break the rule about "votes needed". I mean, maybe there is not > > chinesse support in Arch Linux, but why if we got a TU or Dev who > > speaks chinesse and he wants to move chinesse language packages to > > community?, he won't be able cause the packages aren't enough voted? > > this is very unfair, and that's why I think votes isn't the unique > > point to focus when a package is moved to community. I understand the > > fact about moving -non-popular or unuseful- packages to community and > > waste resources, is bad, and I know that exists hundres of packages > > without votes, IMHO the correct way to handle this is simply, the TU > > who add packages with very few votes should give a good reason about > > why he did it, and in case other TUs aren't agree the TU who upload > > the package should find better reasons, and try later. And again > > *language packages break the rule* simply. > > > > Thanks > > Yeah I agree there should be room for some exceptions. Dependencies > would be the obvious exceptions, and maybe perhaps i18n packages should > be included as well (optdepends?).
I've included the exception for i18n packages in: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community
