Talk:Arch User Repository
contribute to existing package
- 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 If the package is broken or out of date, see Arch User Repository#Foo in the AUR is outdated; what should I do?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)
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: How can I contribute to an existing package?
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.
- 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)
- Update on these proposals: The FAQ integration for Arch User Repository is more or less completed, however some of the FAQ on this page contain maintainer-oriented content that is better suited to subsections of AUR submission guidelines. I am aware that proposals for a page should be discussed only on that page's talk page. These proposals date back to when these two pages existed as one, and therefore concern both: several of the FAQ from this page need to be integrated into subsections of that page. To ease the review process, I compiled a breakdown of the proposed changes. quequotion (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Split FAQ content to Arch User Repository/FAQ page.
Have a look at the ratio of FAQ to page content.
- An alternative which doesn't require a new page is merging this to FAQ. An issue with this approach (presented on IRC) however is that adding AUR content to the "official" FAQ may add some notion of supported-ness for the AUR (and its content in specific). A way around this would be to include the "AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." warning as well. -- Alad (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- This would also add a significant amount of content to the official FAQ page, which might be seen as clutter. However, to be honest I'm more interested in having this FAQ relocated than where it ultimately goes. Also, not sure if I need to clarify, but this is not exclusive of the #Integrate FAQ content proposals; it would be in the best interest of wherever the FAQ ends up that it is as small as possible when it gets there. quequotion (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Meaning of the Popularity score?
Can someone explain what the meaning of the Popularity score is, and how it's calculated? And maybe add that to the wiki? It doesn't seem to be derived from the number of votes, as some packages with more votes has a lower popularity than others with a lower vote count. Maybe it's number of installs? Maybe it's time dependent, so recent votes only temporarily increase popularity?
I got curious about this as a helper like yay prominently displays this value, but I haven't seen it presented in yay's documentation, or here. Or maybe I skimmed them too fast.
This is one of many issues my proposal (Integrate FAQ content) for this page and the AUR submission guidelines page handles. If you dig around on the current page, you may find what you are looking for--or if someone could approve the changes we could have the information appropriately documented under an improved feedback section here, and referenced in a section about promoting packages to community on the AUR submission guidelines page. quequotion (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your proposal does not answer the question "What is the meaning of the Popularity score?" at all, so please stop pretending that it is a universal solution for every issue related to AUR documentation.
- On the AUR package list page, the Popularity column is suffixed with a "?" symbol which has an HTML tooltip explaining how the values are calculated.
- -- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Improve Comment syntax section
It would be best to give examples of comments syntax right there. Currently there are 6 links in that small section, which would take a lot of time from users and may also be misleading.
"Note this implementation has some occasional differences " - would be used much less often than how to just simply markup some code. I suggest main information should go first, and examples would be good.
It would be good if comment syntax was given directly on AUR site, but at least here one should be able to very easily navigate to basic comment syntax. Ynikitenko (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- In particular those differences should be documented, such as aur-specific features. For example, it is noted that references to git commit hashes will be linkified, but not that this means specifically 12-digit hash references (example). No idea what the specific format expected for Flyspray tickets would be. quequotion (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Add context about package ecosystem
I recently had the content below reverted.
The justification was: "this is irrelevant to the technical description of the AUR"
I see nothing in Help:Style, nor do I believe it would be advisable to add, anything limiting the content of articles to being strictly technical. People go to pages in the Arch wiki wanting to learn about that topic, as it relates to Arch. They want technical content and context. What I've included is an extremely important detail for someone evaluating the merits of the Arch package system! Note that I just went around the last couple of hours evaluating other Linux distros for the wiki and thoroughly appreciate when projects are smart about including these sorts of details. That's specifically why I thought to include this now. Einr (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is not an ad board. This page describes what the AUR is and how to use it, your sentence does not help with any of these. Furthermore, your note is misleading because it indicates a combination with official repositories, which are managed independently and contain incomparably higher quality packages. The repository statistics don't consider package quality at all, in fact AUR is one of the few (if not the only one) community-driven and unsupported repositories in the top 10. — Lahwaacz (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding, "May mislead to believe combination with official." Happy to rephrase it to make it explicit in the statement that's not the case if that suits you. Einr (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding, "Not an ad board." The open source world is built on open sharing. What I posted advertises nothing and highlights only that Arch, collectively, has a broader package coverage net than nearly anything else out there almost no matter how it's measured. People looking for a package know what they want and only want to know that it's available. Einr (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding, "Contrast to incomparably higher quality packages" The contrast in quality and implied security between official and AUR seems pretty obvious and well stated already. Also happy to make that more explicit in the statement if you believe it needs further re-iterating. I think it's covered well enough in these pages, but I'm ok with that as a compromise. Einr (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)