On 24/3/22 18:42, Brett Cornwall via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 2022-03-24 13:23, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 24/3/22 11:07, Brett Cornwall via arch-dev-public wrote:
A new RFC (request for comment) has been opened here:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/12
Please visit the above link for discussion.
Summary: Reject AUR packages that fulfill package dependencies
without providing the files/binaries of the package in question.
Just a query if this crosses the line into to distro policy (i.e. RFC
Land) from TU self-governing policy land? I'm OK with this being
discussed as an RFC (openness and visibility is good), but my initial
reaction was this could have been discussed "internally" by the
maintainers of the AUR (TUs) using aur-general.
This proposal was brought up on #archlinux-tu and I was encouraged to
create an RFC. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the AUR was a
project of Arch:
>> A Request for Comment (RFC) is a way for Arch Linux contributors to
>> propose, design and discuss new features and changes in project
>> direction in a focused environment.
From:
https://github.com/archlinux/tu-bylaws/blob/master/tu-bylaws.adoc
Mission: #2
"Maintain, manage, and watch over the operation of the AUR."
This proposal sounds like a management of the AUR issue.
I can withdraw this but I'd advise clarification that TUs should go
huddle in another corner for future discussion. Perhaps another repo for
TU rfcs would be welcome if this is the case.
Again, from the TU bylaws:
"Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by
TUs to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs."
TUs have a process to follow already. A separate RFC repo would require
TU Bylaw changes.
Currently, it is unclear to me whether accepting an RFC still requires a
TU vote for the policy to be accepted. With that uncertainty, I put
more weight on the side with formal bylaws.
As I said, I'm happy the discussion around this RFC is public and open.
But if this is a big enough change for an RFC, then it almost certainly
needs to go through the TU voting procedure.
Allan
