FS#42827 - Flagging out-of-date package should require comments.

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Claire Farron (clfarron4) - Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 00:41 GMT
Last edited by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer) - Saturday, 03 October 2015, 08:03 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Backend
Status Closed
Assigned To Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.4.1
Due in Version 4.1.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 5
Private No

Details

When reporting official packages out-of-date, one must fill out a comment saying why the package is out-of-date.

This would be useful for packages in the AUR, as some packages are marked out-of-date when they are not (I'm aware of this happening to kernel packages, when someone gets over-zealous and forgets to check ALL the sources).
This task depends upon

Closed by  Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer)
Saturday, 03 October 2015, 08:03 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  Implemented in 4.1.0.
Comment by Piotr Górski (sir_lucjan) - Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 10:13 GMT
I have the same opinion like Claire. I maintain linux-lqx. Version of liquorix patch is not compatible with version of upstream patch at the same time - I must wait.

That is very good idea - "one must fill out a comment saying why the package is out-of-date" - and maintainer know, what going now.
Comment by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer) - Saturday, 13 December 2014, 14:35 GMT
I generally like this idea but I do not think it will fix the original issue you described. People will just add a comment "out of date" like they sometimes already do when flagging packages in the official repositories.
Comment by Claire Farron (clfarron4) - Monday, 15 December 2014, 18:50 GMT
Hmm... I agree with you there @cryptocrack on that one.

The thing is that we want a system that works without taking it too far.

It wouldn't surprise me if a tickbox system for ticking which components of a package are out-of-date has already been considered in the past, but something tells me that it could be pretty messy to implement and you'd still want a text box there, for things like new dependencies/version bump due to library version change or something...

It's a tough one.
Comment by (Det) - Sunday, 14 June 2015, 12:36 GMT
I doubt there's any need for a checkbox, but an obligatory message would considerably help with figuring out why packages are flagged (seems a pretty obvious feature for AUR 4).

If you want to trim down the useless descriptions, you could either do what ArchWiki does and show a Red notification[1], or warn that the description (maybe even your username) will be visible in the package page.

[1] = http://i.imgur.com/XM1seJ9.jpg
Comment by Pablo Lezaeta (Jristz) - Wednesday, 24 June 2015, 19:03 GMT
yea, forcing a message is also a option, because #18829 is not implemented is easy and common flag outdated, but the true is that is broken, a message either could help the maintainer know that is there a new version, or if is because now is broken (-git packages for example aren't supposed to be flaged as out-of-date due to the -git nature but are likely to ended broken at some point if upstream change something), also it will implement a reason to close #18829 because flaging now can be explained and terefor be more informative to the maintainer.
Comment by Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer) - Saturday, 27 June 2015, 18:29 GMT
  • Field changed: Due in Version (Undecided → 4.1.0)
Related bug report:  FS#44967 .

Loading...