Adoption of unmaintained packages to maintain them is not a mistake. The problem is the current implementation, not the idea behind it. It’s like saying the AUR is a mistake, because some people do malicious stuff.
They should find a better solution, like adoption shouldn’t be granted to everyone without question, especially new accounts who didn’t maintain anything before. Mass adoption shouldn’t be granted automatically (limit rate), in example 1 package adoption per day and if someone wants more, admins or moderators need to approve. And updates of newly adopted packages should wait a day.
Also the AUR helpers should do a better job. Always ask if a new adopted package should be updated and give a warning the maintainer changed.
Who’s “they”? Because it’s not Arch. Arch doesn’t want to have anything to do with AUR, and neither does any of the Arch-derived distros. They’re all perfectly happy taking advantage of it, of course, but not the responsibility.
Who’s “they”? Because it’s not Arch. Arch doesn’t want to have anything to do with AUR, and neither does any of the Arch-derived distros. They’re all perfectly happy taking advantage of it, of course, but not the responsibility.
Where did you got this nonsense from? What do you mean “they are not Arch”? The AUR is managed and operated by the Archlinux team. As the packages are community-driven content, they cannot guarantee and give support, because it is not their package. But they are still managing and supporting the AUR itself.
Is the current state of the AUR, despite the previous waves of attacks, and its troubled history, not evidence enough? The Arch team has never made the AUR a priority and I don’t see why they would start now.
The way I see it there are three possibilities:
They do nothing.
They shut it down.
They give it up for adoption.
What is not going to happen is the Arch team putting time and effort into overhauling the AUR.
Adoption of unmaintained packages to maintain them is not a mistake. The problem is the current implementation, not the idea behind it. It’s like saying the AUR is a mistake, because some people do malicious stuff.
They should find a better solution, like adoption shouldn’t be granted to everyone without question, especially new accounts who didn’t maintain anything before. Mass adoption shouldn’t be granted automatically (limit rate), in example 1 package adoption per day and if someone wants more, admins or moderators need to approve. And updates of newly adopted packages should wait a day.
Also the AUR helpers should do a better job. Always ask if a new adopted package should be updated and give a warning the maintainer changed.
Who’s “they”? Because it’s not Arch. Arch doesn’t want to have anything to do with AUR, and neither does any of the Arch-derived distros. They’re all perfectly happy taking advantage of it, of course, but not the responsibility.
Where did you got this nonsense from? What do you mean “they are not Arch”? The AUR is managed and operated by the Archlinux team. As the packages are community-driven content, they cannot guarantee and give support, because it is not their package. But they are still managing and supporting the AUR itself.
it’s not managing, as you seem to imply, it’s just hosting.
Arch hosts the AUR repository, the maintenance of the packages is on the developers who developed the package.
If someone sneaks in spyware or malware inside the makepkg, that isn’t arch’s fault, that’s the maintainers fault of the makepkg.
And you’re gonna see the Arch team wash their hands of the whole thing, like they did in the past whenever the AUR was in trouble.
That’s not real ownership.
Do you have any sources, links or evidence for your statements?
Is the current state of the AUR, despite the previous waves of attacks, and its troubled history, not evidence enough? The Arch team has never made the AUR a priority and I don’t see why they would start now.
The way I see it there are three possibilities:
What is not going to happen is the Arch team putting time and effort into overhauling the AUR.
I thought so.
Enforced commit signing and making it obvious when the signature changes would help make adoption much safer. I really hope they implement it.