The trouble is there are too many people that don't (or can't) think about *why* something might not be working. It's often the users' fault :)
Suppose someone sets ld.gold as their default linker "because the internet told them it was better"... and then tries to compile imagemagick... Steven. On 8 July 2014 12:30, Attila Bukor <[email protected]> wrote: > There are two types of comments imho: a) discussion about how the > package should be improved, etc; b) the package doesn't build in some > cases, which *needs* attention from the maintainer. > > Even in case the maintainer is subscribed to notifications, they can > miss these b) kinds of comments if there are lots of discussion no the > package. For this there should be a "flag not working" next to the "flag > out of date" button. Just my two cents. > > r1pp3rj4ck > > > On 07/05/2014 09:59 PM, Steven Honeyman wrote: >> >> Wouldn't this push more work towards the AUR maintainers though? What >> actually happens when someone requests a package is to be orphaned? >> Can the package maintainer "un-request" it by doing something? >> >> I guess I just assumed (like the ML previously) that a bunch of people >> would get an email with the request in it - which nobody really wants >> to see! >> Definitely agree on the comment+checkbox idea being a bad one. As you >> said, everyone's problem would demand attention. >> >> >> Steven. >> >> On 5 July 2014 19:39, A Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Carl Schaefer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> How about adding a "needs attention" checkbox when submitting a comment >>>> that, when checked, would email the maintainer and raise an "attention >>>> requested" flag on the package display page? The maintainer could check >>>> an "AR reset" checkbox when submitting his/her own comment, which would >>>> clear the flag. >>>> Carl >>>> >>> >>> This is calling for abuse. Almost everybody will consider their problem >>> to >>> be worth of attention. Maintainers should be subscribed to be notified of >>> comments in their packages. If they're not, then they're not doing their >>> job >>> properly and requesting orphaning is justified IMO. >>> >> > >
