On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 19:09:37 -0400 bill-auger wrote: > doing so, entails nearly the same > work-load as keeping them in PCR does - everything except for > the final `librestage && librerelase`, which are the most > trivial of the maintenance steps
it has been discussed many times in the past, to open an AUR equivalent for parabola - i raised the issue once myself when i first joined the team - fauno explained the rationale for not having one; and it was essentially what i described - if parabola hosts some software or recipe, then it needs to be curated and maintained, and more importantly, endorsed (or at least fit for the FSDG), or else it is pointless; and we should not recommend any one to use them - regarding the FSDG, it makes no difference, whether the PKGBULIDs were publish by users or by the distro devs; so the conclusion that a parabola-hosted PUR has barely no benefit, is practically the same when you factor the initial cost of in license auditing and packaging dependencies, and the on-going cost of maintaining the PKGBUILD and it's dependencies, that accounts for 99% of the work-load - when that is done, there is barely any reason to not simply publish the binaries - you probably just built and verified them all anyways _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
