Yo! Trusted user from Arch Linux. >On the other side of the spectrum, I've found that the official binary repositories for Arch Linux suffer many of the same i

Yo! Trusted user from Arch Linux. >On the other side of the spectrum, I've found that the official binary repositories for Arch Linux suffer many of the same issues described in the article for Debian. Patches being ignored and collaboration or involvement being near impossible. Well, we still relay on svn internally so things are complicated to say the least. Even if we had things on git (which we are working on), I'm unsure if opening stuff up for outside collaborations like gentoo, alpine, void and nixos does is a good way. You need the proper tooling setup to make sure this isn't a burden on the maintainers. >Even worse, the few people in charge of the official repositories are allowed to basically remove packages from the AUR with no interaction with the AUR maintainer, for the purpose of "promoting" them to the official repositories. Which is true. Some people email maintainers of complicated packages before inclusion, and some also gives a headsup in the comments of the AUR. However, this is all done if the packager want to. There is no rules here. The removal is on the grounds that AUR packages shouldn't overlap with official ones. >This has happened to me twice, and it resulted in what I think is a worse package in one of those cases. I'm interested taking a look at this if you want :) foxboron@archlinux.org or just type in the comments.