Loui Chang wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:18:08AM +0100, Xavier wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, the TUs don't really have control over Arch Linux defaults.
I think the idea behind community is that it's a bit of a testing
grounds for future official packagers. So quality and usefulness
of the repo is important but not as important as core or extra.
Community is the bridge between unsupported and extra.
I believe that correlation should remain pretty explicit as it is now.
If community is brought on as another official repo, then the
distinction between extra and community is eliminated.
Why not just add those packages to extra then?
The distinction is exactly the same as now. community repo is managed
by a community of Trusted User, while extra is managed by arch
developers.
It is still a bridge between unsupported and extra. The only
difference is that on the implementation level, it would be closer to
extra, while now it is closer to unsupported. But on the usage level,
it is always in the middle.
And community can always be a testing ground for future official
packagers : as eliott said, it is even easier to switch from a
technical point of view if community is managed just like core/extra.
Well with that, I was answering the desires of some people to have
community thrown in the same lot with core and extra. Like having
packages listed from the main website rather than aur.archlinux.org
for example.
I would like to hear Aaron's opinion on whether [community] packages
should appear on the main web page rather than the AUR if/when we go for
the single repo-tools route.
The advantage of having the [community] packages shown on the main page
is less maintenance. It also separates the AUR from any repo (which I
personally think is a good thing...)
The disadvantage, is [community] becomes "overly official".
Allan
