[aur-general] packages without category

[Emil Lundberg]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Rob Til Freedmen <
rob.til.freedman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Emil Lundberg <lundberg.emil at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Then
> >
> again, trolls.
>
>
> Trolls?
>

What Ofir Balas was talking about.


>
>

> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Rob Til Freedmen <
> > rob.til.freedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:51:59PM +0200, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <
> > > rob.til.freedman at gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
> > > > > > > > - apparently not a hot topic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the
> > > PKGBUILD
> > > > > > > using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to
> > > stay
> > > > > > > [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected
> packages
> > > > > > > without a category.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > This would become a royal pain in the ass for updating packages,
> > > since
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You just do it once - what's so difficult about it?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Singling out this sentence and replying to it outside of the context
> of
> > > > the rest of my post is plain silly. Please don't do this.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, didn't realized it .
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regardless, you cannot convince me that it's the job of AUR uploader
> to
> > > > impose artificial restrictions on uploads. If you want to mandate
> that
> > > > packages have a category, then make that mandate on the server-side.
> > > >
> > > > > > you rarely (if ever) update a package and include a category. I
> > > suppose
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You could do it in a few lines of code when uploading.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be server-side of course!
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > one could parallelize an existence check with the login, but I
> > don't
> > > > > > really see myself doing this any time soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The current search interface might be insufficient and not optimal
> > > > > regarding categories,
> > > > > but should be consistent and predictably - which it isn't now.
> > > >
> > > > I tend to agree with the consensus that categories are meaningless,
> > > > unmaintainable crap.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I tend to agree... somehow.
> > > Some categories makes sense,  others  could/should be tagged to one or
> > more
> > > categories. Maybe we have it in some future AUR web interface?
> > >
> > > Until then, we should stick to what we have and enforce it to a
> > consistent
> > > state
> > > either by some server-side script, or the lazy way by adding 'None' to
> > the
> > > list
> > > of categories to be searched for.
> > >
> > > rtf
> > >
> >
>