Will do that from now on if there is no other solution. I think you can safely close this topic. Mots of things that needed say got spoken already.
I don't know any other solution. (I remember I needed a while to understand this AUR vs repo thing.) I could think of an automatic message to the user if they mention AUR in their post in the updates category. I don't know if an admin can implement this or it needs a feature request at Discourse devs. But will they read and uderstand the automatic warning?
I have a better idea.
Lets get rid of the AUR all together, and create our own AUR where packages never break.
Maybe not, but at least they will not act like they are correct and everybody else is wrong ... And there will be no more argumentative comments about that. Simply the topic will be more clean already.
Would it be a better practice to systematically -- as in for any package -- create a ask-for-help thread and link it in the update thread?
I think that might be an overkill. I like the "just flag it and let moderators take care of it" approach (mostly because I'm not a moderator ). I don't think anyone should be penalised for mentioning the AUR in an Update Announcement thread, except people who do that repeatedly in spite of warnings (so much that they become known to the mods):
Actually i was hoping that this forum would have this ability, yes.
There is no penalising, you can click away or ignore the warning.
Do you mean in a more automated way than manually creating it and posting the link?
We tried it in the beginning of the Discourse forum, we even experimented with making update announcement topics read only. But that makes the forum as help channel less accessible. Therefore we dropped this idea.
I will tell you a secret:
It doesn't matter.
Well, if automatic is not possible, then by forum members intervention, so they would have to know that AUR are not to be discussed in the update announcements, but be able to link the announcement to their opened topic so the connection is made and people can follow that link from within the announcement. Somehow, each update will have their list of issues + a list of links to AUR related packages issues for that particular update, but separated.
Thanks for clarifying.
I don't think automating that behavior would be such a good move:
- we currently don't have categories for update related issues; and even if we do, some people will certainly still post in the "wrong" category -- which would required extra moderation work to fix
- not everybody update as soon as an update comes in, sometimes skipping a few -- i regularly see replies about issues actually introduced in a previous update
You could say that we'd have the same issues if done manually and that's true, although automating this is likely to spread "wrongful" notices more easily.
After some thought I can't imagine any automatic solution.
- Simply a trigger on "AUR" as keyword? - The user will probably only mention the package name. And then the other user who points out that it's an AUR package will get discouraged by an automatic notification.
- The list of all (or most popular) AUR packages as keyword? - It's a long list which needs to get created and maintained.
My proposal was not to go insane here ... hahaha
People might not mention is an AUR package at all, only somebody else notice and know that ... In the end is all reduced to
We already have two informative posts about AUR in #faq
IT think we need a third common issue that someone can't update, because an AUR package blocks the update. We had a discussion about it recently, but an FAQ writeup is needed.
EDIT: A TODO for me (or someone else who will be faster than me).
Something like this:
Yeah, that is another can of worms indeed. I didn't quite wanted to mention it here, as we discussed it already, and somehow i still think is a different issue. Also is quite obvious that regulars are a lot more compliant and not in complaint with the forum rules, the structure of information, how to give support or report issues etc. But is enough just one steer and we all go sideways ...
I do think that will be welcomed...
@eugen-b - From my last comment i hope you did not interpret i don't agree with you because i avoided to address it