I agree that tags would be cool but I don't see a real need for it, "yaourt <searchterm>" is usually good enough for me. I think that if tags were to be added it would make sense to make it a feature provided by the AUR web interface rather than the packages themselves, so the tags could be edited in a Wiki/StackExchange-like way without modifying the packages. Then again, trolls.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen < [email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: > > > > > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > There are still >1000 packages without 'Category' > > > > > > - apparently not a hot topic. > > > > > > > > > > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the > PKGBUILD > > > > > using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to > stay > > > > > [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages > > > > > without a category. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages, > since > > > > > > > > > > You just do it once - what's so difficult about it? > > > > > > > > > > Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context of > > the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this. > > > > Sorry, didn't realized it . > > > > Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader to > > impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate that > > packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side. > > > > > > you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I > suppose > > > > > > > > > > You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading. > > > > That would be server-side of course! > > > > > > > > > > > > one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I don't > > > > really see myself doing this any time soon. > > > > > > > > > > The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal > > > regarding categories, > > > but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now. > > > > I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless, > > unmaintainable crap. > > > > I tend to agree... somehow. > Some categories makes sense, others could/should be tagged to one or more > categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface? > > Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a consistent > state > either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to the > list > of categories to be searched for. > > rtf >
