[tur-users] Ion3

[David Rosenstrauch]

Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-04-30, David Rosenstrauch <darose at darose.net> wrote:
>> Incorrect.  These packages existed on the AUR, the ArchLinux 
>> User-community Repository.  They were not part of the any of the 
>> officially distributed Arch repositories.  So no; no user of Arch would 
>> possibly make the mistake of thinking that ion packages in the AUR were 
>> "the standard Ion3".
> 
> Hahah. You trust users too much. And it doesn't matter whether they
> are "officially distributed": they're still distributed by ArchLinux
> in a very accessible form, without any noticeable disclaimers or
> warnings.


Umm ... you mean like this?:

"However, these PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been 
thoroughly vetted, so they should be used at your own risk."

Which is on the AUR User Guidelines page ... which there is a prominent 
link to at the top of the AUR home page:

"Welcome to the AUR! Please read the AUR User Guidelines and AUR TU 
Guidelines for more information."


It's arguable that perhaps the "unofficial status" could be made a bit 
clearer on the AUR home page.  But by the same token, there's also a 
good argument to be made that there's not really a need for it to be. 
The AUR is really only useful to users of Arch Linux (and only 
adventurous ones at that, who choose to delve beyond the official 
repositories) and Arch users are very clear on exactly what the AUR is, 
what it's for, and what it's not for.  And as far as I know, this is the 
only time a non-Arch-user has ever wound up significantly confused about it.


>> as you can see, is really basically just a community bulletin 
>> board for PKGBUILDs - it's not a software repository, and not an 
>> "official" part of the Arch Linux distribution.
> 
> Doesn't look like that to me. It's not a random mess of a bulletin
> board, but a very polished listing of software, indistinguishable
> from an officially maintained repository.


Well, since the documentation states pretty explicitly that it is *not* 
an officially maintained repository, but rather a place where *users* 
can upload their own PKGBUILD scripts (and *not* pre-built binaries), it 
looks pretty distinguishable to me ... and to anyone who bothers to take 
more than a minute to look at it.


>> So in short, neither the Arch Linux developers or TU's are responsible 
>> for the PKGBUILDs you are referring to.  If you had a problem with that 
>> PKGBUILD, you should have sent an email to the user who put it there. 
>> If you failed to get a response, or the user refused, then you should 
>> have emailed this TUR list
> 
> I asked the "user" in the comments to rename the packages. He refused,
> and pointed me here.


Which makes him/her in the wrong, I agree.  But again, that's not the 
Arch TU/Devs fault, so why take it out on them?


>> And a few nicely worded emails would have gotten the PKGBUILD in 
>> question taken down just as quickly - if not more so - than flames.
> 
> The first email was very nicely worded.


The first email ... meaning the one to that user?  Can't speak to that, 
as I haven't seen it.

But the first email you posted here was a threat of legal action.  Not 
exactly a very nice "Hi, please let me introduce myself, and can you 
help me resolve this issue."


DR