Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unofficial user repositories"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Include maintainer info?: pf)
(armv6h: re)
Line 34: Line 34:
Do we keep repo for [[Unofficial_User_Repositories#armv6h_only|armv6h]] architecture or should it be removed? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we keep repo for [[Unofficial_User_Repositories#armv6h_only|armv6h]] architecture or should it be removed? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:I don't see any hARM in keeping it, do you? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:46, 1 December 2013

The future of Unofficial repos

I'd like to see more work of this type. Sometimes there are certain projects that don't mesh well with other things, such as the community repo. The 'kdemod' project is a good example. If you want to contribute with your own builds, you can check page Custom local repository.

In the future, well-thought-out user repositories may be ideal for lots of supplementary things. Forming a "web of trust" is important in cases like this, so we may begin keeping a list of "recommended" repositories somewhere, in order to make it seem more official and trustworthy.

Phrakture 12:50, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Why don't repos provide files.tar.gz database?

Is there a reason many (most?) user repos don't provide files.tar.gz? https://projects.archlinux.org/dbscripts.git/tree/cron-jobs/create-filelists

Without it tools like pkgfile won't work.

Karol 11:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Maybe it's time to ask this question on the forum (I hope it's not yet a crime to instigate Karol to post something on the forum :D ). -- Kynikos (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I did some checking by hand and found that many repos do provide them now, but some still don't. I opened a thread on the forums asking if more maintainers would consider adding this feature to their repos. -- Karol (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Include maintainer info?

I think it is a sensible requirement to include some info about the maintainer of each repository - at least a (nick)name + contact (website, email, userpage on ArchWiki or the forums...). Any thoughts? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good idea. -- Karol (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
+1, would you require it among the #comments? -- Kynikos (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That would be possible, but I'd like some links to be clickable (just the "contact" links, not the official url containing variables). Currently the entire blocks are in <nowiki> tags and escaping on multiple places would be very unclear, so perhaps it's time to split the blocks into subsections per repository. Then the #comments could be really short, if any - the user can add his own comments he finds useful.
Note that some repositories have an "upstream" page directly on ArchWiki, e.g. Infinality-bundle+fonts for [infinality-bundle] and Repo-ck for [repo-ck]. It's a shame those links are not included or the url is hardcoded in #comments.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok for the wikification of the article. Arch is not for the lazy, those who want some comments in their pacman.conf won't mind having to type some hashes after pasting the text. -- Kynikos (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Having a heading for each repo would also let us simplify instructions like this by replacing them with simple links to this article (also note the first-person writing in that example); this rule would also end up in Help:Style I think. -- Kynikos (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but the rule should not apply to pages like repo-ck...
Alright, I've converted the page to the new scheme, check out the quite long diff: [1]. I've filled in maintainer contact entries of several Trusted Users with link to https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/ (hope they don't mind...), but most repos miss the information about maintainer. At least for signed repos it should be relatively easy to extract this information.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Terrific job, thank you!! The style rule is there: Help:Style#Unofficial repositories. Do you think we need to explicitly except articles like repo-ck? I think the way the rule is worded already excepts such articles, but I've written it so I'm not neutral ^^ -- Kynikos (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Do we keep repo for armv6h architecture or should it be removed? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any hARM in keeping it, do you? -- Kynikos (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)