On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Pierre Chapuis <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:21:23 -0400, > Ray Kohler <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Back on topic, I think I'll wait and see if anybody else has any >> surprising suggestions that disagree with this one, and if none are >> forthcoming, I'll disown the surf package. Having a pacman developer >> tell me not to use pacman for a given purpose is rather convincing, in >> which case, I should let someone who _isn't_ convinced take on the >> package and worry about the problem, instead of me. ;) > > Well, I am not since I use surf with the stock configuration :)
This may become less attractive in the future as surf becomes less simple, and gains a lot of configuration options. It's my impression, based on what I see on the suckless mailing list, that this is likely to happen. > Even if I weren't, I don't use Yaourt or any automatic upgrade tool (but I do > have a script that checks and warns me if my packages are outdated) so the > way it works now is OK for me. > > I always install everything with Pacman when I can because it can track the > files in my system tree for me. I create custom PKGBUILDs if I need to, even > if they have to be ugly. > > Anyway, I think surf should stay in AUR and be maintained so I'm ready to > take ownership of the package if you choose to disown it. Disowned. It's all yours. Given that you actually use it, and I don't, that would be enough all by itself.
