Talk:Arch User Repository
contribute to existing package
- Users are not allowed to modify something owned by another user. It's no different from cloning a Github repository and trying to push to that. The equivalent of submitting an issue would be leaving a comment with a patch file. The AUR platform in particular allows collaboration features -- you may request that a maintainer grant you push access by adding your name as a co-maintainer. If the package is broken or out of date, see Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?
- This is possibly something that we should make clear in a FAQ entry. -- Eschwartz (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this while writing a proposal regarding "Other requests". It is possible to request a package be disowned with "Orphan"; why not add "Co-maintain" to send a request to ask for permission to assist with a package's maintenance? Of course, it would not be unnecessary to send that request to the mailing list, and there's always the AUR comments or the forums for users to contact a maintainer otherwise; but having the feature built in to the AUR would allow us to add a fourth subsection here to recommend ground rules and possibly expedite the process of adding co-maintainers when packagers are interested in doing so. quequotion (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Closing proposal below, now implemented. Leaving discussion open: in the future, we may want to break long bulleted lists like "Rules of Submission" and "Maintaining Packages" into subsections. This would make it more convenient to link to specific points in the list, which in turn would be convenient if we still want an FAQ such as "How can I contribute to an existing package?" (which should link to adopting orphaned packages, commenting on a package, and adding co-maintainters) quequotion (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package?
Integrate FAQ content
Truncate FAQs' answers as much as possible, linking to an appropriate page or (proposed) section of the AUR page. Note that some content must be transferred to the AUR submission guidelines.
- There are a lot of changes to review; so I've compiled a rundown of them on the talk page of the draft. quequotion (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please keep drafts on a dedicated page. (Special:Diff/575147) Closing the sections below. -- Alad (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Revert to 03.02.2019 revision
After discussing the many changes to this article, me and the TU team agreed to revert this page to the 03.02.2019 revision. Besides that most of the changes were one-sided, many of them change meaning or add incorrect information (such as the article mentioning that adopting an orphaned package allows to push changes, while the mere fact of pushing to an orphaned package automatically adopts it) or reduce clarity (such as the rewording on .SRCINFO regeneration or the "source format" term in Arch_User_Repository#What_is_the_difference_between_the_Arch_User_Repository_and_the_community_repository?).
To avoid this in future, I've moved the content in AUR#Sharing and submitting packages to a seperate protected page: AUR submission guidelines. That way the official guidelines for package submission cannot be changed without prior notice, while content related to retrieval and installation of AUR packages may still be edited freely. If there are suggestions to make new changes to AUR submission guidelines, please create a draft page and post it on the talk page of that article. The same holds for any other proposed changes to the AUR article, especially if major. -- Alad (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm going to have to ask you to reconsider. You're talking about months of careful work, by multiple authors, much of it accurate and positive changes. I had asked about pushing to adopt, but no one responded. I waited for weeks, even months to debate many of these changes with proposals clearly laid out here as well as a full-page draft; the only on-page response they garnered was the early-on, abusive, dismissal by eshwartz, mostly on the grounds that it would be too much work. It wasn't; I got it done (via many fine, precise and sequenced edits). Some smaller edits I made without a proposal, but all the major changes were here, some for months, waiting for a legitimate debate. I had a lot of positive (though unofficial) feedback on IRC, even from eschwartz, about the idea of integrating the FAQ; the only lack of consensus there was in regard to how. The minimum I waited between implementing any proposal (after I decided to go ahead with improving the page in lieu of any further feedback) was a week, and no one responded after they were implemented either (everything remained on the page for at least a week after closure). I even opened a thread in the forums to (unofficially) discuss these changes. We've had plenty of opportunities to talk about this. quequotion (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The wiki is, by definition, a collaborative space where multiple editors ensure content is representative and of high quality. In this case, the content is also the main (and for most purposes, authorative) documentation of the AUR. When then a single editor rewrites the article after showing his impatience with other editors - especially when this rewrite results in inaccurate content - then it's clear that restoring a previous revision is more important than preserving the "months of careful work" from that single editor.
- I'd say that the main issue here is the way proposals were presented, i.e. a dense proposal/comment/draft format rather than the usual, seperate draft page (with its own, seperate talk page). A good example of the latter approach is Talk:GRUB#Manually_generate_grub.cfg and the draft pages User_talk:Eschwartz/Grub and User:Eschwartz/Grub. It takes time to merge such changes - the wiki is over 14 years now and its documentation is relied upon by thousands of Arch and Linux users in general. A few months more or less for implementing "stylistic" changes are then hardly as important as ensuring content remains accurate and representative.
- In short: the page stays as is, but I will look (and encourage other TUs to look) at any draft pages such as User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines as time allows. -- Alad (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't upset with Polyzen so much as that the edit went unchallenged. I was trying to illustrate what a mess things were--I had made, and abandoned, a similar proposal not long before. This actually led to improvements in the Rules for Submission, regarding submitting binary packages (I kept some of that edit; "deliverables"). You could also say it was a passive-aggressive attempt to get attention to the proposed changes.
- In fact I had a full page draft, which was linked from here and the forum thread. No one ever commented it; not sure if anyone even looked at it. The reason I put proposals on the page here is rather simple: the proposal evolved from a smaller one that made sense being on the page into a huge one that didn't (the ultimate origin of my desire to fix this page goes back to the dispute over git instructions in "Creating package repositories").
- What's more, as has been discussed, the information in the May 3rd version of the page is not particularly more accurate or representative than the page that was reverted. Some of the same inaccuracies are still there, and have been there since years ago, not to mention the FAQ is hard to follow (not everyone is going to ask the same questions when they need this information).
- In case you haven't noticed, I am not easily discouraged. I'd be happy to make any changes recommended for either draft. See also User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository. quequotion (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The 3rd February revision did not have the glaring mistakes pointed out above, and was generally more clear. Reverting to an earlier date was too complicated (as it would involve undoing the work by other editors), so the 3rd February one is the revision the TU team picked. Otherwise I have nothing more to add here. -- Alad (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- You say "glaring mistakes" but I have as yet only been informed of two attributable to myself (incorrectly guessing that it would be necessary to adopt a package through the aur web interface before one could push changes; and incorrectly rewording an FAQ to say that the AUR provides "packages in source format" which is kind of debatable--not that I want to debate it); neither of which I would say could have caused significant harm or inconvenience to anyone reading the page--not to say they shouldn't be fixed. As I've said, whether its content I created, changed, or has nothing to do with me at all, I don't mind fixing anything; just let me know what needs to be fixed. quequotion (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page.
Have a look at the ratio of FAQ to page content.
- An alternative which doesn't require a new page is merging this to FAQ. An issue with this approach (presented on IRC) however is that adding AUR content to the "official" FAQ may add some notion of supported-ness for the AUR (and its content in specific). A way around this would be to include the "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." warning as well. -- Alad (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- This would also add a significant amount of content to the official FAQ page, which might be seen as clutter. However, to be honest I'm more interested in having this FAQ relocated than where it ultimately goes. Also, not sure if I need to clarify, but this is not exclusive of the #Integrate FAQ content proposals; it would be in the best interest of wherever the FAQ ends up that it is as small as possible when it gets there. quequotion (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)