I think it's wrong way. Some of packages just install old versions, they can be adopted by users and updated easily. Take a look at helium, for example. Fully working pkgbuild, only pkgver needs to be changed to get it up-to-date. Firstly we must take care about really obsolette packages. For example - sim-im. SVN snapshop, even when we have normal SVN pkgbuild and normal stable pkgbuild. So sim-im must be removed. And so on. When we finish cleaning up obsoletes, we can start cleaning up orphans. Here is my vision how this must work: 1. There is addittional button on pkgbuild's page - Report obsolete. 2. If user clicks this button, notify will be sent, for example, to aur-mods maillist 3. Mod will remove this packages 4. Package must be moved to some sort of archive - there will always be human mistakes. That archive can be cleaned, for example, every month. Or not cleaned at all - pkgbuilds are pretty small :) 5. When user try to create new PKGBUILD with pkgname = name of previously removed pkgbuild, maybe we must print some notice and link to old pkgbuild. Old projects can be revived sometimes.
On 03/02/10 19:55, Lauri Niskanen wrote: > On 02/03/2010 07:48 PM, Lex Rivera wrote: > > The main reason why a asked for it is amount of crap in AUR. I have my own > > repo, maybe > > that's why i'm not interested in [community]. But AUR have huge list of > > orphaned, outdated, obsolette packages. Most of them can be deleted, > > since they have no use now. I see them nearly everyday, and... Well, i > > think you catch that. AUR needs moderators. AUR must be clean. > > Sorry for my bad english =( > > > > On 03/02/10 12:31, Angel Velásquez wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Chris Brannon <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> Thomas Bächler wrote: > >>>> I think it is a good idea. We could create the "AUR moderator" position > >>>> instead of calling it "Semi-TU". > >>> > >>> This is a fine idea, and I see no harm in it. > >> > >> Im in favour of this, my unique concern is about how hard will be > >> creating another level of permission in the AUR, and some rules about, > >> if a semi-tu can orphan packages from TUs or TU-Dev, figuring out that > >> part, and assuming that will have an approbation, we will start > >> writting patches, so this can be a "slow" process, (2 months or so if > >> it's aproved? plus the time of discussion?). > >> > >> Let's see what happens! > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Angel Velásquez > >> angvp @ irc.freenode.net > >> Arch Linux Trusted User > >> Linux Counter: #359909 > >> http://www.angvp.com > > Let's start the cleaning here: > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&do_Orphans=Orphans&detail=0&C=0&SeB=nd&SB=v&SO=a&PP=25&outdated=on > > Maybe we should just delete all packages with no votes and that have > been orphaned. > > -- Ape <Lauri Niskanen>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
