Loui Chang a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 07:18:51PM +0100, Alessio Bolognino wrote:
On Mon 2008-11-10 12:59, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:53:13PM -0500, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 06:47:32PM +0100, Angel Velásquez wrote:
[...]
Yeah I agree there should be room for some exceptions. Dependencies
would be the obvious exceptions, and maybe perhaps i18n packages should
be included as well (optdepends?).
I've included the exception for i18n packages in:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community
What about perl-* packages? IIRC there is an automagic script that
mirrors CPAN.
Yes. perl-cpanplus-pacman (in community) which I wrote a while back.
Do you think they should really be part of community though? Wouldn't it
be sufficient for them to be in unsupported?
Absolutely. And I maintain a few of these myself that I picked up from
the perl mess that some former TU (xterminus I think) had abandoned in
community in the summer of 2007. I have moved of LOT of them to
unsupported but many are still in community. Now a few days ago (that
is, before that discussion started) I looked at the perl packages I
currently maintain in community, and identified over 75 that are good
candidates to be moved to unsupported, because they have very few votes.
I will check this against the pkgstats value and will make a cleanup
myself in the next few days/weeks.
In a different matter, we have had a discussion last year about a
possible limit to the number of packages each TU should be allowed to
maintain in community, but we could not reach any agreement on this.
Perhaps time is ripe to discuss this issue once more.
F
