On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Wallace <danielwall...@gtmanfred.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:41:50AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Wallace >> <danielwall...@gtmanfred.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace >> >> <danielwall...@gtmanfred.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just >> >> >> one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing >> >> >> package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination. >> >> >> >> >> >> The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days >> >> >> ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I >> >> >> uploaded last Nov. >> >> >> >> >> >> I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything >> >> >> is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can >> >> >> fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to >> >> >> know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is >> >> >> enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the >> >> >> maintainer now? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yichao Yu >> >> >> >> >> >> [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ >> >> >> [1] >> >> >> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html >> >> > >> >> > Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir >> >> > should be inside the package() function. >> >> > >> >> > repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated >> >> > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html >> >> > >> >> > and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated >> >> > https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ >> >> > https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/ >> >> >> >> I agree, and I have already fixed it. >> >> >> >> BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is >> >> why did you simply remove the package!! >> >> You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the >> >> incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even >> >> disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy >> >> if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove >> >> (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even >> >> attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR. >> >> >> >> It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will >> >> probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date >> >> button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing >> >> that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is >> >> definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should >> >> do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and >> >> improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing >> >> package right away" belong to. >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_.5Bunsupported.5D >> >> >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Daniel Wallace >> >> > Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) >> >> > Georgia Institute of Technology >> > >> > If you read the front page of the AUR, you will note the following. >> > >> > Contributed PKGBUILDs must conform to the Arch Packaging Standards >> > otherwise they will be deleted! >> >> OK, as you are happily deleting every single slightly non-standard AUR >> packages, I want to ask on the mailinglist when did removing package >> immediately becoming the rule. >> >> > >> > https://aur.archlinux.org/ >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Wallace >> > Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) >> > Georgia Institute of Technology > > For the record, I have only deleted NEWLY updated packages that are > either. > > A) Named incorrectly. > Someone uploads a -git or -svn package and doesn't name it -git or > -svn, it has no votes and no comments, so instead of waiting for it > to get to a point where it would have to be merged, I leave a note > explaining that it should be named correctly and then delete it.
This is probably fine but I think there should REALLY be a guide line on wiki or AT LEAST a NOTE on the mailing list ~1-2days before you start to do that. > > B) it has no package() function. > I am not going through all of the aur and deleting everything > without a package() function. I am deleting newly uploaded packages > that don't have a package() function. I noticed yours had 3 votes, > I assumed it was because it was one of the first ones in my rss feed > of new packages to the aur, and one of the oldest since the last > time I had gone through them. If you check the AUR stats on teh > side of the home page, you will not that 1/4th of all packages in > the aur have never been updated. So instead of just leaving a note > to add a package() function I delete them because it is brand new, > almost no votes and usually no comments. I'm assuming you remove "brand" new packages because they have no user. But 1, this is a simple rename of an old package, that is NOT NEW 2, there are 3 votes, which means it has user 3, since you already has rss for packages, why can't you be more responsible (as a TU) to come back at the package at least a couple of days later. > > On this point, I don't believe we should be merging to any packages > which do not properly meet the Packaging Guidelines. > > > -- > Daniel Wallace > Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) > Georgia Institute of Technology