Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch User Repository"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(replaces=(): new section)
(Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page.: Agree)
 
(52 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== What is the correct AUR forum section? ==
 
 
[[Arch_User_Repository#Submitting_packages]] says it's [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=4], but we also have [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=38]. One of them should be added to [[Arch_User_Repository#I_have_a_PKGBUILD_I_would_like_to_submit.3B_can_someone_check_it_to_see_if_there_are_any_errors.3F]]. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 
:Both have a place in [[#Proposal: Verifying packages]], which also distinguishes that one is maintainer-oriented (Creating & Modifying Packages) and the other end-user oriented (AUR Issues, Discussion & PKGBUILD Requests). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
== contribute to existing package ==
 
== contribute to existing package ==
 
what is the best way to contribute to an existing AUR package? i cloned one and tried to push but it gave me a permission error --[[User:Soloturn|Soloturn]] ([[User talk:Soloturn|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 
what is the best way to contribute to an existing AUR package? i cloned one and tried to push but it gave me a permission error --[[User:Soloturn|Soloturn]] ([[User talk:Soloturn|talk]]) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Line 13: Line 8:
 
::I was thinking about this while writing a [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Proposal: Other requests|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. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 
::I was thinking about this while writing a [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Proposal: Other requests|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. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  
== Integrate FAQ content ==
+
:::Rather than an FAQ, maybe add a bullet point under "Maintaining packages". Question: Who has the right to use "Manage Co-Maintainers"? [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 
 
This will be a massive undertaking, possibly spanning multiple articles, but I think it will be helpful to preempt a lot of these questions by having a more concise, informative page. The very first response I got about this on IRC was a misinterpretation, so let me be explicit: it is not ''implied'' that the FAQ will be removed by these changes, ''that is the primary reason I am proposing them''. The FAQ is a disorganized mess of information that should be in other sections of the article, is redundant with existing sections of the article, or belongs on entirely different pages. Are these actual questions people often ask, or is this a convenient way to append random bits of advice to the end of an incomplete article?  
 
  
I don't mean to denigrate anyone's work here; this advice is good, I just want to organize it in a better way. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 10:28, 9 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) [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  
:There is no confusion here: I'm well aware you want to remove the FAQ, that is the entire reason I disagree with it in the first place.
+
=== <s>Proposal: Maintaining packages (Add co-maintainers)</s> ===
:"FAQ: a list of questions and answers relating to a particular subject, especially one giving basic information for users of a website."
+
* Additional maintainers can be added to or removed from a package by clicking "Manage Co-Maintainers" under "Package Actions" on the right of its AUR page and editing the list.
: This is most explicitly a case where it is morally, philosophically, and for the sake of usability, superior to describe in FAQ format, hiding this information by integrating it into "relevant sections" is explicitly doing a disservice to the community and to all users.
 
:I'm uninterested in discussing any specificity of your attempted work below, because I'm unconvinced it is a good idea to even try. -- [[User:Eschwartz|Eschwartz]] ([[User talk:Eschwartz|talk]]) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 
::Why: For the future of the page. Which way should future writers go? Append a new FAQ for their tidbit of advice, or add it to a relevant section of the page? There are already ''sixteen'' FAQ; there's half as much content in the FAQ section as the previous sections combined (I counted a little over thirteen mousewheel scrolls to reach the FAQ, and about seven to get through it).
 
::How about a counter proposal: if the FAQ really is essential, we move the content to relevant sections on relevant pages, then reduce the FAQ to a series of one-liners that link to the appropriate content. Assuming people actually ask these questions, that will both satisfy their search for answers and keep the page maintainable. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 02:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 
By the way, if you'd like to see the big picture, [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository|here is a whole-page draft]]. I am keeping it up-to-date with edits here, the only difference being that [[#What is the AUR?]] is removed from the draft page. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
  
=== Proposal: FAQ ===
+
=== Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package? ===
 +
{{Comment|No longer clear where this question would fit--splitting the content of the page between a "maintainter-oriented" page and a "user-oriented" page overlooks the fact that AUR package maintainers and AUR users ''may be the same people''.}}
 +
If the package is [[Talk:AUR submission guidelines#Orphan|orphaned]] you may [[Talk:AUR submission guidelines#Maintaining packages|adopt it]], otherwise you may post your idea [[Arch User Repository#Commenting on packages|in its comments]] or ask to be [[Talk:AUR submission guidelines#Maintaining packages|appointed as a co-maintainer]].
  
{{Comment|Truncates FAQs' answers as much as possible, linking to an appropriate page or (proposed) section of the AUR page. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)}}
+
== Integrate FAQ content ==
 
 
==== What is the AUR? ====
 
 
 
The AUR (Arch User Repository) is a place where the Arch Linux community can upload [[PKGBUILD]]s of applications, libraries, etc., and share them with the entire community. Fellow users can then vote for their favorites to be moved into the [[community repository]] to be shared with Arch Linux users in binary form.
 
 
 
{{Comment|As previously noted, I can find no reason for this to be here; the answer is the page header. Is it possible that someone would read this page and still have this question to ask? [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
==== <s>What kind of packages are permitted on the AUR?</s> ====
 
 
 
For most cases, everything is permitted, subject to the [[#Rules of submission]].
 
 
 
==== <s>How can I vote for packages in the AUR?</s> ====
 
 
 
See [[#Voting for packages]].
 
 
 
==== What is a Trusted User (TU)? ====
 
 
 
The [[AUR Trusted User Guidelines|Trusted Users]] are elected to oversee the AUR and maintain the [[community repository]].
 
 
 
==== <s>What is the difference between the Arch User Repository and the community repository?</s> ====
 
 
 
AUR packages are maintained by community members and provided in source format, while the packages in the [[community repository]] are maintained by the [[Trusted Users]] and provided in pre-compiled binary format. See [[#Proposal: Promoting packages to the community repository|#Promoting packages to the community repository]] for more information.
 
 
 
==== <s>Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?</s> ====
 
 
 
See [[#Flagging packages out-of-date]].
 
 
 
{{Tip|In the meantime, you can try updating the package yourself by editing the [[PKGBUILD]] locally. Sometimes, updates do not require changes to the build or package process, in which case simply updating the {{ic|pkgver}} or {{ic|source}} array is sufficient.}}
 
 
 
==== <s>Foo in the AUR does not compile when I run makepkg; what should I do?</s> ====
 
 
 
You are probably missing something trivial; see [[#Proposal: Verifying packages|#Verifying packages]].
 
 
 
==== <s>ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!; what should I do?</s> ====
 
 
 
See [[Makepkg#ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!]].
 
 
 
==== <s>How do I create a PKGBUILD?</s> ====
 
 
 
Be sure to check the AUR to avoid duplicating efforts, then see [[creating packages]].
 
 
 
==== <s>I have a PKGBUILD I would like to submit; can someone check it to see if there are any errors?</s> ====
 
 
 
There are several channels available to submit your package for review; see [[#Proposal: Verifying packages|#Verifying packages]].
 
 
 
==== <s>How to get a PKGBUILD into the community repository?</s> ====
 
 
 
See [[#Proposal: Promoting packages to the community repository|#Promoting packages to the community repository]].
 
 
 
==== <s>How can I speed up repeated build processes?</s> ====
 
 
 
See [[Makepkg#Improving compile times]].
 
 
 
{{Comment|Not specifically AUR-relevant; sufficiently available on the [[Makepkg]] page. Come to think of it, if we have to keep some FAQs, this is about the appropriate length their answers should be (primarily linking to the appropriate section or article answering the question). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
==== <s>What is the difference between foo and foo-git packages?</s> ====
 
 
 
Many AUR packages come in "stable release" and "unstable development" versions. Development packages usually have a [[Talk:VCS package guidelines#Proposal: Package naming|suffix]] denoting their [[Version Control System]] and are not intended for regular use, but may offer new features or bugfixes.
 
 
 
See also [[System maintenance#Use proven software packages]] and [[VCS package guidelines]].
 
 
 
{{Comment|Perhaps we could extend the [[Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Additional Conventions|Package naming]] section of the [[Arch package guidelines]]; at least to inform readers that there are additional naming conventions on the pages listed by [[Template:Package guidelines]] (such as [[VCS package guidelines]]). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
==== Why has foo disappeared from the AUR? ====
 
  
It is possible the package has been adopted by a TU and is now in the [[community repository]].
+
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]].
  
Packages may be deleted if they did not fulfill the [[#Rules of submission]]. See the [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/ aur-requests archives] for the reason for deletion.
+
If you'd like to discuss the proposal as a whole, do so in this header; use [[Template:Comment|comments]] within individual subsections to discuss them. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
If the package used to exist in AUR3, it might not have been [https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2015-August/031322.html migrated to AUR4]. See the [[#Git repositories for AUR3 packages]] where these are preserved.
+
If you'd like to see how this page should look, and get a history without other changes, I've restored its [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository|full page draft]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
==== <s>How do I find out if any of my installed packages disappeared from AUR?</s> ====
+
:There are a lot of changes to review; so I've compiled a rundown of them [[User talk:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Breakdown_of_changes|on the talk page of the draft]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 13:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  
The simplest way is to check the HTTP status of the package's AUR page:
+
:Please keep drafts on a dedicated page. ([[Special:Diff/575147]]) Closing the sections below. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
$ comm -23 <(pacman -Qqm | sort) <(curl https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz | gzip -cd | sort)
+
== Improve "Rules of submission" section ==
  
==== How can I obtain a list of all AUR packages? ====
+
This section is a ''lengthy'' list of bullet points; breaking it down into subsections would make it much more navigable; this may escalate into that later. For now, only rules with changes proposed are listed; unlisted rules remain as they are. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  
* See https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.gz
+
=== Proposal: Rules of submission ===
* Use <code>aurpkglist</code> from {{aur|python3-aur}}
 
 
 
=== <s>Proposal: Feedback</s> ===
 
 
 
{{Comment|Merges FAQs [[Talk:Arch User Repository#How can I vote for packages in the AUR?|3]] and [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated;_what_should_I_do?|6]] as well as the [[Arch User Repository#Comment Syntax|Comment Syntax]] section into the [[Arch User Repository#Feedback|Feedback]] section. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
:Edits implementing this section of the proposal are complete. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 03:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
The AUR provides various means for users to communicate with package maintainers, provided they have setup an account on the [https://aur.archlinux.org AUR Web Interface].
 
 
 
==== Commenting on packages ====
 
 
 
Comments allow users to provide suggestions or respond to updates and maintainers to respond to users or make announcements. Make a comment in the "Add Comment" section of a package's AUR page.
 
 
 
The [https://python-markdown.github.io/ Python-Markdown] syntax is supported, which provides basic [[Wikipedia:Markdown|Markdown]] syntax for formatting. Maintainers may pin comments by clicking the thumbtack button in their top-right corner.
 
 
 
{{Note|
 
* The markdown implementation has some occasional [https://python-markdown.github.io/#differences differences] with the official [https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax syntax rules].
 
* Commit hashes to the [[Git]] repository of the package and references to [[Flyspray]] tickets are converted to links automatically.
 
* Long comments are collapsed and can be expanded on demand.}}
 
 
 
{{Tip|Avoid pasting patches or PKGBUILDs into the comments section; they quickly become obsolete and just end up needlessly taking up lots of space. Instead email those files to the maintainer, or use a [[pastebin]].}}
 
 
 
==== Voting for packages ====
 
 
 
One of the easiest activities for '''all''' Arch users is to browse the AUR and vote for their favourite packages. All packages are eligible for adoption by a TU for inclusion in the [[community repository]], and the vote count is one of the considerations in that [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Promoting packages to the comunity repository|process]]; it is in everyone's interest to vote!
 
 
 
While logged in, on the AUR page for a package you may click "Vote for this package" under "Package Actions" on the right. It is also possible to vote from the commandline with {{AUR|aurvote}}, {{AUR|aurvote-git}}, {{AUR|aur-auto-vote-git}}, or {{AUR|aurvote-utils}}.
 
 
 
Alternatively, if you have set up [[#Authentication|ssh authentication]], you can directly vote from the command line using your ssh key and avoid having to save or type in your AUR password.
 
 
 
ssh aur@aur.archlinux.org vote <PACKAGE_NAME>
 
 
 
==== Flagging packages out-of-date ====
 
 
 
While logged in, on the AUR page for a package you may click "Flag package as out-of-date" under "Package Actions" on the right. You should also leave a comment indicating details as to why the package is outdated, preferably including links to a release announcement or a new release tarball. Also try to reach out to the maintainer directly by email. If there is no response after ''two weeks'', you may file an [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Orphan|orphan]] request.
 
 
 
{{Note|[[VCS package guidelines|VCS packages]] are not considered out-of-date when the {{ic|''pkgver''}} changes, do not flag them as the maintainer will merely unflag the package and ignore you.}}
 
 
 
=== <s>Proposal: Promoting packages to the community repository</s> ===
 
 
 
{{Comment|Merges FAQs [[Talk:Arch User Repository#What is the difference between the Arch User Repository and the community repository?|5]] and [[Talk:Arch User Repository#How to get a PKGBUILD into the community repository?|11]] into a new section. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 20:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 
:Edits to implement this proposal are completed. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 07:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
When AUR packages receive enough community interest and the support of a [[Trusted User]], they may be adopted into the [[community repository]] (maintained by the TUs), from which binary packages can be installed using [[pacman]].
 
 
 
Usually, at least 10 [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Voting on packages|votes]] are required for something to move into ''community''. However, if a TU wants to support a package, it will often be found in the repository.
 
 
 
Sufficient votes are not the only requirement; there has to be a TU willing to maintain the package. TUs are not required to adopt a package even if it has thousands of votes.
 
 
 
Usually, when a very popular package stays in the AUR it is because:
 
 
 
* Arch Linux already has another version of a package in the repositories.
 
* Its license prohibits redistribution.
 
* It helps retrieve user-submitted PKGBUILDs ([[AUR helpers]]).
 
 
 
See also [[AUR Trusted User Guidelines#Rules for Packages Entering the .5Bcommunity.5D Repo|Rules for Packages Entering the community Repo]].
 
 
 
=== <s>Proposal: Verifying packages</s> ===
 
 
 
{{Comment|Merges FAQs [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR does not compile when I run makepkg; what should I do?|7]] and [[Talk:Arch User Repository#I have a PKGBUILD I would like to submit; can someone check it to see if there are any errors?|10]] and some of the header of [[#Proposal: Submitting packages|Submitting packages]] into a new section. Although general information about debugging packages is best handled by the [[makepkg]] and [[PKGBUILD]] pages, there are some particular things that AUR package maintainers and users should be aware of. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 
:Edits to implement this section of the proposal are now complete. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
If you are having trouble building a package, read its [[PKGBUILD]] and the comments on its AUR page. It is possible that a {{ic|PKGBUILD}} is broken for everyone. If you cannot figure it out on your own, report it to the maintainer (e.g. by posting the errors you are getting in the comments on the AUR page). You may also seek help in the [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=38 AUR Issues, Discussion & PKGBUILD Requests forum].
 
 
 
To avoid problems caused by your particular system configuration, build packages in a [[DeveloperWiki:Building in a clean chroot|clean chroot]]. If the build process still fails in a clean chroot, the issue is probably with the {{ic|PKGBUILD}}.
 
 
 
See [[Creating packages#Checking package sanity]] about using {{ic|namcap}} to debug packages. If you would like to have a {{ic|PKGBUILD}} reviewed, post it on the [https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general aur-general mailing list] to get feedback from the TUs and fellow AUR members, or the [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=4 Creating & Modifying Packages forum]. You could also seek help in the [[IRC channel]] [ircs://chat.freenode.net/archlinux-aur #archlinux-aur] on [https://freenode.net/ Freenode].
 
 
 
{{Tip|1=Avoid common pitfalls:
 
# Ensure your build environment is up-to-date by [[Pacman#Upgrading_packages|upgrading]] before building anything.
 
# Ensure you have both {{Grp|base}} and {{Grp|base-devel}} groups installed.
 
# Use the {{ic|-s}} option with {{ic|makepkg}} to check and install all the dependencies needed before starting the build process.
 
# Try the default [https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/makepkg.conf?h=packages/pacman makepkg configuration].
 
# See [[Makepkg#Troubleshooting]] for common issues.}}
 
 
 
=== <s>Proposal: Submitting packages</s> ===
 
 
 
{{Comment|Merges FAQ [[Talk:Arch User Repository#What kind of packages are permitted on the AUR?|2]] into [[Arch User Repository#Rules of submission|Rules of submission]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 
With the exception of [[Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial package]], which would allow a few lines to be transferred off the AUR page, edits implementing this section of the proposal are complete. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
{{Warning|Before attempting to submit a package you are expected to familiarize yourself with [[Arch packaging standards]] and all the articles under "Related articles". [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Proposal: Verifying packages|Verify carefully]] that what you are uploading is correct. Packages that violate the rules may be deleted without warning.}}
 
 
 
If you are unsure in any way about a package or the build/submission process even after reading this section twice, [[Talk:Arch User Repository#Proposal: Verifying packages|submit the PKGBUILD for review]].
 
 
 
==== Rules of submission ====
 
 
 
When submitting a package to the AUR, observe the following rules:
 
 
 
* Submitted {{ic|PKGBUILD}}s must be in compliance with the licensing terms of the content to be packaged. In cases where it is mentioned that "you may not link" to downloads, i.e. contents that are not redistributable, you may only use the file name itself as the source. This means and requires that users already have the restricted source in the build directory prior to building the package. When in doubt, ask.
 
  
 
* Submitted {{ic|PKGBUILD}}s must not duplicate applications in any of the [[official repositories]]. Check the [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/ official package database]; if the package exists, '''do not''' submit a duplicate. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken, or lacking a standard feature, please file a [https://bugs.archlinux.org/ bug report].
 
* Submitted {{ic|PKGBUILD}}s must not duplicate applications in any of the [[official repositories]]. Check the [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/ official package database]; if the package exists, '''do not''' submit a duplicate. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken, or lacking a standard feature, please file a [https://bugs.archlinux.org/ bug report].
 
:The only exception to this is for packages with ''extra'' features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones, in which case {{ic|''pkgbase''}} should be [[Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial packages|different]] to express that.
 
:The only exception to this is for packages with ''extra'' features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones, in which case {{ic|''pkgbase''}} should be [[Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial packages|different]] to express that.
 +
:{{Comment|Offload some text and make a more far-reaching policy statement via [[Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial packages]] [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)}}
  
{{Comment|Skipping three bullet points (Check the AUR..., Make sure..., Do not use...), no changes to propose for them. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)}}
+
* <s>Do not use {{ic|replaces}} in an AUR {{ic|PKGBUILD}} unless the package has been renamed or deprecates another, for example when ''Ethereal'' became ''Wireshark''. If a package is an alternate version of an existing package, use {{ic|conflicts}} (and {{ic|provides}} when the offending package has dependents).
 
+
:{{Note|[[PKGBUILD#replaces|replaces]] forces ''pacman'' to install the replacement package as an upgrade of the offending package, while [[PKGBUILD#conflicts|conflicts]] tells ''pacman'' to remove the offending package only if the conflicting package is to be installed.}}</s>
* Submitting binaries ''should be avoided'' if the sources are available. The AUR should not contain binary tarballs created by makepkg, nor should it contain their filelists. Consult the [[Nonfree applications package guidelines#Package naming|Nonfree applications package guidelines]] regarding packages that redistribute prebuilt [[Wikipedia:Deliverable|deliverables]] and the [[Java package guidelines#Java_packaging_on_Arch_Linux|Java package guidelines]] regarding packages that redistribute java binaries.
+
:{{Comment|Although the place to explain {{ic|replaces}} is really the [[PKGBUILD]] article, I see the need for this blurb with this rule. I think it could be done better though. Particularly I'd like to remove the implication that {{ic|pacman -Sy}} is to be used for any purpose. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 
+
::Changes to this bullet point are completed. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)}}
{{Comment|No other changes to this section (content from this point on is the same) [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 17:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)}}
 
 
 
== Removal of SSH key tutorial ==
 
 
 
What is [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&diff=567047&oldid=566978 this] about? Are you sure those AUR-specific tutorials should be removed? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for minimizing any section of the page that safely can be, but it seems like this edit leaves out some important information (like specifying a corresponding private key configured for the {{ic|aur.archlinux.org}} host). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
:My edit was motivated by strong disagreement with the statement ''"You should create a new key pair rather than use an existing one, so that you can selectively revoke the keys should something happen"''. Imho it is misleading to imply any security benefit resulting from creating per-target-host SSH client key pairs. If anything, this bad habit complicates revoking compromised keys. Adding a Host-section to the SSH client configuration file is unneccessary if you only have a single SSH client key pair, as it will be selected automatically. [[User:Pyropeter|Pyropeter]] ([[User talk:Pyropeter|talk]]) 02:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 
 
 
== the wording around pkgbase is unclear ==
 
 
 
In [[Arch_User_Repository#Creating_package_repositories|Creating_package_repositories]], some people might end running the exact command below even if they do not copy-paste commands blindly:
 
git clone ssh://aur@aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase.git
 
 
 
This part is unclear: "establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by cloning the intended pkgbase.": some readers might think that here pkgbase is not a PKGBUILD variable but instead describe the name of a repository that has a template for creating packages.
 
 
 
Several people already pushed their packages in this pkgbase repository.
 
 
 
So it would be best to make sure that the people reading this understand that the pkgbase refers to the PKGBUILD variable and not to a PKGBUILD template. As the pkgbase variable is often not defined explicitely in PKGBUILDS, readers don't necessarily have that variable in mind at the time of reading that section.
 
 
 
Maybe the following would be more clear:
 
 
 
If you are creating a new package from scratch, establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by cloning the package's repository which is located at {{ic|''ssh://aur@aur.archlinux.org/PKGBASE.git''}}. Replace {{ic|''PKGBASE''}} by your package's [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|pkgbase]].
 
 
 
  
[[User:GNUtoo|GNUtoo]] ([[User talk:GNUtoo|talk]]) 15:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
+
== <s>Revert to 03.02.2019 revision</s> ==
:This is why it is italicized; it should be clear that it represents a variable. It would be more clear if users have read the [[PKGBUILD]] page first, which they should. Maybe it would be better to block packages from being uploaded to 'pkgbase' in the AUR. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 
  
== Adopting orphaned packages ==
+
After discussing the many changes to this article, me and the [[TU]] team agreed to revert this page to the [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&oldid=565770 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?]]).
  
Although adoption by a new maintainer is mentioned several times in the article, how this is done is not explicitly stated. The procedure is the same as for creating a new package (clone from ssh source, or set source url to ssh if cloned from https). [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 20:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
+
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. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:Might also be a good idea to mention where the "adopt package" button is on the AUR web interface. Curious though, if it is really necessary to click this, or if pushing to an orphaned repository will automatically adopt it. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 
  
==== Current: Creating package repositories ====
+
: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 [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=244634 opened a thread in the forums] to (unofficially) discuss these changes. We've had plenty of opportunities to talk about this. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 00:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
If you are [[Creating_packages|creating a new package]] from scratch, establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by [[Git#Getting_a_Git_repository|cloning]] the intended [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|pkgbase]]. If the package does not yet exist, the following warning is expected:
+
::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 [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1845901#p1845901 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. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
==== Proposal: Creating or adopting package repositories ====
+
::::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. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
If you are [[Creating_packages|creating a new package]] from scratch, or adopting an orphaned package, establish a local Git repository and an AUR remote by [[Git#Getting_a_Git_repository|cloning]] the intended [[PKGBUILD#pkgbase|pkgbase]]. If the package does not yet exist, the following warning is expected:
+
:::::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. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  
==== Proposal: Maintaining packages ====
+
::::::Content must be correct ''before'' it is merged to an article, not fixed ''after''. It's as simple as it is obvious. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
{{Comment|An additional bullet point for this subsection. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)}}
 
* Orphaned packges can be adopted by clicking on the "Adopt Package" link under "Package Actions" on the right of its AUR page, which will allow you to [[#Proposal: Creating or adopting package repositories|clone]] its repository and push changes.
 
  
== replaces=()  ==
+
== Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page. ==
  
Although the place to explain {{ic|replaces}} is really the [[PKGBUILD]] article, I see the need for this blurb with this rule. I think it could be done better though. Particularly I'd like to remove the implication that {{pacman - Sy}} is to be used for any purpose. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 06:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
+
Have a look at the ratio of [https://i.postimg.cc/MHHcW5b3/aur-slashfaq.png FAQ to page content].
  
=== Current: ===
+
I like the the idea of using ''Article''/FAQ for these. [[User:Quequotion|quequotion]] ([[User talk:Quequotion|talk]]) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
* Do not use {{ic|replaces}} in an AUR {{ic|PKGBUILD}} unless the package is to be renamed, for example when ''Ethereal'' became ''Wireshark''. If the package is an '''alternate version of an already existing package''', use {{ic|conflicts}} (and {{ic|provides}} if that package is required by others). The main difference is: after syncing (-Sy) pacman immediately wants to replace an installed, 'offending' package upon encountering a package with the matching {{ic|replaces}} anywhere in its repositories; {{ic|conflicts}}, on the other hand, is only evaluated when actually installing the package, which is usually the desired behavior because it is less invasive.
 
  
=== Proposal: ===
+
: This makes sense to me. [[User:Jasonwryan|Jasonwryan]] ([[User talk:Jasonwryan|talk]]) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
* Do not use {{ic|replaces}} in an AUR {{ic|PKGBUILD}} unless the package has been renamed or deprecates another, for example when ''Ethereal'' became ''Wireshark''. If a package is an alternate version of an existing package, use {{ic|conflicts}} (and {{ic|provides}} when the offending package has dependents).
 
:[[PKGBUILD#replaces|replaces]] forces ''pacman'' to install the replacement package as an upgrade of the offending package, while [[PKGBUILD#conflicts|conflicts]] tells ''pacman'' to remove an offending package ''if'' the conflicting package is being installed.
 

Latest revision as of 02:16, 18 June 2019

contribute to existing package

what is the best way to contribute to an existing AUR package? i cloned one and tried to push but it gave me a permission error --Soloturn (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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)
Rather than an FAQ, maybe add a bullet point under "Maintaining packages". Question: Who has the right to use "Manage Co-Maintainers"? quequotion (talk) 15:07, 27 May 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: Maintaining packages (Add co-maintainers)

  • Additional maintainers can be added to or removed from a package by clicking "Manage Co-Maintainers" under "Package Actions" on the right of its AUR page and editing the list.

Proposal: How can I contribute to an existing package?

Comment: No longer clear where this question would fit--splitting the content of the page between a "maintainter-oriented" page and a "user-oriented" page overlooks the fact that AUR package maintainers and AUR users may be the same people.

If the package is orphaned you may adopt it, otherwise you may post your idea in its comments or ask to be appointed as a co-maintainer.

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.

If you'd like to discuss the proposal as a whole, do so in this header; use comments within individual subsections to discuss them. quequotion (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like to see how this page should look, and get a history without other changes, I've restored its full page draft. quequotion (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Improve "Rules of submission" section

This section is a lengthy list of bullet points; breaking it down into subsections would make it much more navigable; this may escalate into that later. For now, only rules with changes proposed are listed; unlisted rules remain as they are. quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Rules of submission

  • Submitted PKGBUILDs must not duplicate applications in any of the official repositories. Check the official package database; if the package exists, do not submit a duplicate. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken, or lacking a standard feature, please file a bug report.
The only exception to this is for packages with extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones, in which case pkgbase should be different to express that.
Comment: Offload some text and make a more far-reaching policy statement via Talk:Arch package guidelines#Proposal: Unofficial packages quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use replaces in an AUR PKGBUILD unless the package has been renamed or deprecates another, for example when Ethereal became Wireshark. If a package is an alternate version of an existing package, use conflicts (and provides when the offending package has dependents).
Note: replaces forces pacman to install the replacement package as an upgrade of the offending package, while conflicts tells pacman to remove the offending package only if the conflicting package is to be installed.
Comment: Although the place to explain replaces is really the PKGBUILD article, I see the need for this blurb with this rule. I think it could be done better though. Particularly I'd like to remove the implication that pacman -Sy is to be used for any purpose. quequotion (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Changes to this bullet point are completed. quequotion (talk) 09:09, 4 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)
Content must be correct before it is merged to an article, not fixed after. It's as simple as it is obvious. -- Alad (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page.

Have a look at the ratio of FAQ to page content.

I like the the idea of using Article/FAQ for these. quequotion (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Jasonwryan (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)