Talk:Arch User Repository

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 19:13, 10 May 2012 by Rnabioullin (talk | contribs) (Standards on content: added signature)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge with Arch User Repository

Are there any objections to merging this article with the Arch User Repository article? It seems odd to redirect users to a separate "usage" page.

-- pointone 15:21, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Removing / changing the part about [community]

IMO this whole part should just be removed now that community have been seperated from aur. But as a minimum it should be cleaned up, since there have been cases where it have confused users rather than help them:

Perhaps something like:
The [community] repo is enabled by default in pacman.conf. If disabled/removed, it can be enabled by uncommenting/adding these two lines:

Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist

Any typos would have to be fixed of course :p
Is community still disabled by default in abs.conf btw?

Mr.Elendig 21:37, 21 November 2009 (EST)

I don't think the [community] section should be removed; improved, maybe. Where does this confusion arise from? What do you mean by "separated from AUR"? My understanding is that they are very much connected.
-- pointone 22:33, 23 January 2010 (EST)


There should be some sort of info on the JSON interface Daenyth 20:10, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Standards on content

I believe that there should be more comprehensive, clear, and explicit standards on what content is allowed to be installed by an AUR package. There already exist two guidelines:

1. usefulness: "Make sure the package is useful. Will anyone else want to use this package? Is it extremely specialized? If more than a few people would find this package useful, it is appropriate for submission."

2. IP restrictions: "For most cases, everything is permitted, as long as you are in compliance with the licensing terms of the software..."

The former is acceptable because "usefulness" is inherently subjective. The latter does state an important restriction, but implicitly assumes that only software is permissible for AUR packages, when in fact there exist packages within the AUR which install only non-executable data. I believe that it is overall community consensus that such packages are permissible as long as they install documentation for a particular software package, a set of closely-related software packages, or the Archlinux distro as a whole (e.g., offline Archlinux wiki), and that documentation not directly applicable to the aforementioned, any standards (e.g., FHS, OFM), and any books (e.g., Pro Git, Crime and Punishment, etc.) are outside the scope of the AUR. Any ideas? Do these proposed standards accurately reflect community consensus? Rnabioullin (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)