On 12/05/2020 19.02, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 5/6/20 5:19 PM, Frederik Schwan via aur-general wrote: >> My AUR packages got reviewed recently by eschwartz, svenstaro and >> alad - thanks :) > Just for the record -- I did not review your AUR packages, you may have > intended to ask me to do so but this never happened. Perhaps you drafted > this email and forgot to remove my name before sending it?
I just looked at my git log. No we did not. Sorry, that was not intentional :( I thought we did a review when we talked about my bugwrangler application. But apparently we didn't. > You did provide a very useful kernel backports patch for my zfs-dkms > package, which was much appreciated. Thank you :) >> If I become a TU, I'd like to focus on the bug tracker until we have >> a better solution. I'd also like to help out bug fixing when >> maintainers are busy, away or on vacation. > I don't know what this means... once there is a "better solution for our > bugtracker" you intend to not focus on it? :p > > Becoming a TU might give more opportunities to commit fixes to packages, > but it's unrelated to triage and analysis, at least, which I'd say are > the things which need the most love. > > So there's plenty to do there either way. :D > (Speaking from personal experience, being a TU has made me less > productive on the bugtracker.) I am missing any experience of a TU's life, so any judgement from me would be arrogant imo. Though, I have experienced the rogue environment of the AUR and I think I'm well prepared to handle some of the packages in [community], where at least no one comments "PKGBUILD broken, `One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!`" :P I intend to keep the bugtracker as my first priority though :) >> I'm aware though that some of these packages do not meet the criteria >> of 10 votes yet. I'll reevaluate whether they meet this criteria from >> time to time. >> >> I'd also like to go on helping Eli with maintenance of >> zfs-dkms and zfs-utils in the AUR. > Patches and suggestions are definitely welcome. :D > > Though I doubt zfs is suitable in any way for inclusion in community, > despite indeed having enough votes. I don't think it's suitable for community either. I'd like to continue working with you in the AUR on it if you don't mind? >> In case JetBrains is okay with us packaging their IDE's, I'd also >> maintain them. But so far all requests I found resulted in a negative >> response from JB. > I'm given to understand packaging our current packages for > pycharm/intellij community edition gives their current maintainers > enough agonizing headaches. It seems like the kind of thing one would > want to avoid getting involved in. :D > > I don't think we should be packaging their custom JRE, anyway, as that > should remain an AUR kind of thing (and we don't optdepends on AUR > packages either). This probably makes it more complicated to support > their stuff, especially for things which aren't open source? > > tl;dr do you believe this is practical to focus on? Do you think they > are likely to provide a way for us to package it which fits our > packaging guidelines? I don't intend to focus on this. I've been the maintainer of 5 JB packages for some time now and JB is a pretty prominent IDE creator. If there is some time I'd like to ask them how they think about repackaging their stuff. But before I'll help out on updating pycharm-community and intellij-idea-community to feel the pain first. :P Frederik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature