On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:20:10PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:19:21AM -0500, Daenyth Blank wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:59, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Any other people want to comment on this? Any TUs feel keeping AUR pages > >> > for [community] packages is necessary? > >> > > >> > Allan > >> > > >> > >> I'd like to keep them. Especially if we get smooth non-destructive > >> transitions moving a package from community to unsupported. > > > > Hmm it seems like all it takes to move a package from community to > > unsupported is to upload the tarball with buildscripts via the AUR > > interface (pkgsubmit.php). Votes and comments are preserved. > > > > So if we're doing a clean up, we can disable tupkgupdate to be safe. > > tupkgupdate only runs a minute after the hour every hour. > > It shouldn't be a problem really. > > So are you suggesting that all community packages will also exist in > unsupported? If we're going to go that route, why not integrate the > AUR with the abs tree - seems there'd be no need to upload anything > that way, and there' be no file duplication.
Oh I'm just saying if we do a clean up before the transition that it's pretty easy to move a package to unsupported, and we won't lose any data for those packages transferred. Yeah the running policy is for no duplication.
