Why are users generally barred from flagging packages out of date in the artix package site? Do the forum accounts work on there?
Nope.
Like why is registration required but also not possible? No idea. Just designed that way I guess.
Honestly I don't think we need a package flagging system since the majority of our packages just follow Arch. I'm working on a replacement for the package site and flagging will not be a part of it.
Instead, some team members developed artix-checkupdates (https://packages.artixlinux.org/details/artix-checkupdates). Then I developed this website (https://checkupdates.artixlinux.org/) that wraps around that. Chances are the package you have in mind is already listed as upgradable. If it is and it's taking a while, that's because we could use another maintainer or two.
If not:
- Is the package in question also in Arch's repos? Is it out-of-date there as well? Flag it as out of date on their site.
- Is the package an init script? Post about it in the appropriate init subforum.
- Is the package neither an init script nor in Arch's repos? Post about it in this subforum.
Yeah thought so.
It was weird having those flag buttons but we can't activate them anyway. Also the website is horrendous on mobile.
So you mean we follow arch's release schedule or we pull straight from Arch repos?
Oh I see.
Very true, Artix could use a few more maintainers.
Right now I'm just waiting for the Plasma 6.1.3 update.
We don't (normally (https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,6830.msg41560.html#msg41560)*) push updates before they come to Arch. And then we use their PKGBUILD. So both.
We're aware of the pending updates. Our Plasma maintainer is on holiday.
Have you tried recently? There were some mobile improvements sitting around in git that finally got deployed about a month ago. Not that it matters too much, that site's days are numbered.
Well now that you mention it the site does seems to be rid of it's display issue, although I may have not noticed because it's still the same website.
And hmm, I see. So your website is the sure successor then?
I thought as much haha. I hope they're well. I remember one plasma 6 update being released here more or less on the same day the next was released on the plasma site, so it felt meaningless to build the now older package rather than the new one. That was funny.
Hmm I see. I think it's a good decision, even with slower upgrades by having arch as a sort of shield to detect if things are not good to update for now?
And wait for them to fix it. Things are already near the verge of breaking with our different init systems trying to be compatible in harmony with less and (more needed) community support.
I think I'll mark the topic as solved now, is nothing else is needed to be said. Thanks for your help and answering, I appreciate it.
Pending approval from our head honcho when he returns (also on vacation?), yes. It's just a fork of archweb (https://github.com/archlinux/archweb).