We want people to use the packages in community, not shy away from them, Bugger automating/asking, who cares if it's anti-arch, just throw the community line in the pacman.conf
Bugger debating whether the packages are tested enough. How many people here have had issues with a community package? On the whole, they're awesome, and really... if you think about it, many of them are just simple ./configure,make,make install routines, there's hardly anything a TU can get wrong in one of those. Most of the problems anyone will have with a community package will have been introduced upstream at the developer's end. And in the unlikely case of a problem? Bugtracker! Someone needs to find the problem sooner or later anyway. If a new users have a problem, chances are they would have that same problem if they had made their own PKGBUILD or installed to their system. This way, we can at least get it reported somewhere and without reproduced work. If the users arent given community and dont know it exists, where are they going to get the programs that are in it from? They might well make their own PKGBUILD, reproducing work, or just install it straight to the system without pacman. I think we'd all rather they use the community package than do that. TRUST our TRUSTED users, have confidence in them, and put community repo in, otherwise, we may as well just call them untrusted packaging people. Not much point for their existance them if we end up calling them that. Be decisive, dont argue about silly things like whether it's arch philosophy, or the theoretical issues because the packages may not have been 'tested'. James Rayner On 9/21/05, Philip Dillon-Thiselton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Khashayar Naderehvandi wrote: > > Fair enough :) As long as it's made clear that there > > are other repositories and how they are enabled, I'm > > happy. It's pretty annoying not being able to install, > > say, azureus and not knowing that there is a fine > > repository hosting it. > > I see reading the docs and searching for stuff really is dying art then? > Seriously tho, we do need to refresh teh new users "where to go" thing > - the install docs could use a refresh too! > > > > > /K. > > --- Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>On 9/20/05, Khashayar Naderehvandi > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>I think we could ask users during installation > >> > >>whether > >> > >>>they would want [community] enabled or not, and > >> > >>also > >> > >>>throw in an appropriate warning. The value of this > >>>idea, I think, lies in the fact that the new user > >> > >>will > >> > >>>be aware of [community]'s existence rather > >>>instantaneously. > >> > >>I think automation like that is kind of anti-arch. > >>Why not just say > >>"The [current] and [extra] repos have been enabled. > >>Please edit > >>/etc/pacman.conf to enable additional repos." > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>arch mailing list > >>[email protected] > >>http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with > > voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > arch mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > -- iphitus - www.iphitus.tk _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
