On 11/3/21 13:07, Samir Nassar via arch-general wrote:
On Wednesday 3 November 2021 11:47:32 CET Vasi Vilvoiu via arch-general wrote:
That's unfair to your userbase. There's no way for people to contribute
to core packages, period. Community packages require being a TU, which
as far as I know is not an easy process to go through. The AUR does not
accept "under any circumstances"[1] packages already in community/core.
I don't see how not having access to to the Arch Linux infrastructure stops
you or anyone from collaborating on fixes using ones own resources. Whether you
use a platform such as GitHub, GitLab straight up hosting the assets yourself
all work.
People are already doing that for specific corner cases. There's also an
exception in the AUR rules that allow packages compiled with patches or
extra features.
But that is in no way, shape or form a valid way of treating out of date
packages. What is, then, the purpose of ArchLinux if I need to compile a
good chunk of the packages (especially GNU toolchain)?
Make no mistake, the selling point of Arch is that it provides binary
package repos and the setup/sync time is very small. Take that away and
we start having pacman/PKGBUILD vs Portage/ebuild discussions where the
"winner" is not so clear cut as you think.
What you should take away from this is not a threat (please, please,
please!) but the fact that IMHO the developers need to make it clear
what their stance is on this topic.
Best regards,
Vasi Vilvoiu
