Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unofficial user repositories"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(armv6h: re)
m (Undo revision 389723 by Tredaelli (talk))
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
::I did some checking by hand and found that many repos do provide them now, but some still don't. [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1177795#p1177795 I opened a thread] on the forums asking if more maintainers would consider adding this feature to their repos. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 13:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 
::I did some checking by hand and found that many repos do provide them now, but some still don't. [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1177795#p1177795 I opened a thread] on the forums asking if more maintainers would consider adding this feature to their repos. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 13:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  
== Include maintainer info? ==
+
== Explicitly tell users how to enable an unofficial repo? ==
 +
How do you feel about adding a new paragraph that says something like ''To use an unofficial repository, add it to your /etc/pacman.conf and run 'pacman -Syu'''? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  
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? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 18:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
+
:Sure - it might be worth to split the instructions at the very top into "Enabling an unofficial repository" and "Publishing new repository" sections. (Of course the headings are just suggestions, feel free to use different wording.) -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
: Very good idea. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
+
::+1, would you require it among the #comments? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk: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 {{ic|<nowiki><nowiki></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 {{ic|[infinality-bundle]}} and [[Repo-ck]] for {{ic|[repo-ck]}}. It's a shame those links are not included or the url is hardcoded in #comments.
+
:::-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 10:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+
::::Having a heading for each repo would also let us simplify instructions like [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Plex&curid=16254&diff=285193&oldid=283466&rcid=397813 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. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk: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: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Unofficial_User_Repositories&diff=285428&oldid=285374]. 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.
+
:::::-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk: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 ^^ -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
+
  
== armv6h ==
+
== Where to put my repo? ==
 +
I've got a repo which currently has `i686` and `any` packages in it.
 +
Under which heading(s) does it go?
 +
Ta. [[User:Phillid|Phillid]] ([[User talk:Phillid|talk]]) 08:29, 16 October 2014 (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)
+
: To answer my own question, I'll just follow what xyne has done. I will create repositories for i686 and any, with all the `any` packages included in the former. I will then list each repo db under each applicable category
 
+
:I don't see any hARM in keeping it, do you? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
+

Latest revision as of 09:56, 3 August 2015

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)

Explicitly tell users how to enable an unofficial repo?

How do you feel about adding a new paragraph that says something like To use an unofficial repository, add it to your /etc/pacman.conf and run 'pacman -Syu'? -- Karol (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure - it might be worth to split the instructions at the very top into "Enabling an unofficial repository" and "Publishing new repository" sections. (Of course the headings are just suggestions, feel free to use different wording.) -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to put my repo?

I've got a repo which currently has `i686` and `any` packages in it. Under which heading(s) does it go? Ta. Phillid (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I'll just follow what xyne has done. I will create repositories for i686 and any, with all the `any` packages included in the former. I will then list each repo db under each applicable category