Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch User Repository"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Moderation: add rev)
(Moderation)
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
* [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&diff=378002&oldid=378001 378002]: links will be updated when AUR4 is moved to the old subdomain. See also [[Help:Style]] for when to properly use Warnings.
 
* [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Arch_User_Repository&diff=378002&oldid=378001 378002]: links will be updated when AUR4 is moved to the old subdomain. See also [[Help:Style]] for when to properly use Warnings.
 +
 +
:* Sorry about that, I thought reading the discussion after I submitted the changes. Fair enough about the links, but the users will have to ultimately change their git remotes on August 8th. Shouldn't we add a note? Or will there be a mass message informing about this? [[User:Maevius|Maevius]] ([[User talk:Maevius|talk]]) 20:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:28, 9 June 2015

Scope of the AUR4 section

The section sees a lot of contributions, which is a nice thing, but there are some outstanding issues. For example:

-- Alad (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I somewhat disagree. Yes, in general it is good to make people learn stuff themselves. However, we currently force all package maintainers to move to a new AUR "format" within 4 weeks. Splitting git repositories is none of these basic things everybody learns in a git tutorial. Giving maintainers the right tools at hand is a good thing in this case.
Moving the migration to AUR 4 to a separate wiki page would be a good idea though (when the AUR homepage also links there).
--JonnyJD (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest to either 1) move the commands to a gist 2) improve the comments of the linked scripts 3) or merge things to Git. Not sure a separate page is the best idea, as it would be a temporary measure; after AUR 4 has settled, the section should be a central part of the article. -- Alad (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I removed both sections (SSH, migration) and added a bit more info in the other sections. I also added more comments in my scripts (linked in the wiki): aur4_import.sh, aur4_make_submodule.sh --JonnyJD (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated. About SSH, it seems not all of the information is present in the linked article though, e.g the "It is recommended to add the following lines to your ~/.ssh/config so you do not need to specify user and key each time you connect to the AUR SSH interface:" directive. There's SSH_keys#Managing_multiple_keys, but it doesn't mention "User foo". -- Alad (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't User foo practically useless in this case? We have aur@ in all repository url examples. And this seems to be standard. I have all my repository urls prefixed with git@ or similar. --JonnyJD (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right of course. *Facepalm* Well, I think this can be closed then. Cheers -- Alad (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderation

Reopening. Edits which systematically ignore this discussion, or existing article content, may be reverted without further notice. -- Alad (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • 378002: links will be updated when AUR4 is moved to the old subdomain. See also Help:Style for when to properly use Warnings.
  • Sorry about that, I thought reading the discussion after I submitted the changes. Fair enough about the links, but the users will have to ultimately change their git remotes on August 8th. Shouldn't we add a note? Or will there be a mass message informing about this? Maevius (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)