Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On 2013-04-18 14:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > Emotional comments, like your and Hugo come time to time, usually on > aur-general, when packages are moved from AUR to community. AUR > PKGBUILD are _not_ the property of the maintainer (even if he's a good > guy who drink beer) and sending a mail can be automated by AUR to says > : "You're package have been removed. Thanks for you support :)" If you really think my completely detached comment was "emotional", then my meaning has been lost in translation. I was merely saying that I think it is common courtesy to notify in cases such as this. Chris pgpXN0fhNyXy0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera >> wrote: > Yes, but they differ from the defaults for no aparent reason. > For example, since the sysconfdir was different, upon update, my email > stop being sent from most machines (only my desktop kept working, since > I run opensmtpd-snapshot on it). > Also, since the user that runs smtpd is different, my spool was > inaccesible to the daemon once I fixed that. Ok, it brokes your system... because your PKGBUILD use different path and users. Nothing related to upstream ;) > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/34835 > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/34836 > Thanks ! > No offense taken, though I'm actually curious as to why that was. Mainly because I have started my package a long time ago, even before the first release of opensmtpd. I looked all openstmpd PKGBUILD into AUR and I took what I found interesting. Send me (off list) your PKGBUILD if you want more detailed comments. > I've honestly considered this a few times, but I don't really participate > in IRC/forums enough to qualify, IMHO. Nor am I familiar with any TU to > seek sponorship. *I* think we (as a TU/Dev community) could improve our enrollment process to allow more skilled people to be involved into packaging and distro improvement. You have all my encouragements to find free time to be more involved member of our growing community. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On 2013-04-18 14:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Down wrote: > > On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera > > I must say I do find it a bit off that a package with a conflicting name > > would > > be added without even attempting to contact the AUR maintainer. There was no > > rush to upload this package. You could have contacted him just to say what > > you > > were doing, but you didn't. > > Hi Chris, > > First, there was more than one packages in AUR (opensmtpd, > opensmtpd-portable, etc). I hope others maintainers will not claims > kinship. > I have contacted, AUR opensmtpd maintainer by mail in march to ask him > to update because the package was was out-of-date since weeks. He > doesn't answer and it's not the same email that Hugo. I'm wondering if > Hugo was maintainer of opensmtpd for more than 2 weeks. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier on, the package I maintained was originally called opensmtpd-portable, since that's the name the devs gave the non-openbsd version originally. I'd been maintaining it for well over a year. I had contacted the maintainer of opensmtpd many, MANY times asking him to disown it (since he kept abandoning it), but he would just updated it every time I requested that. The other opensmptd related packge was opensmtpd-portable-snapshot, which follows the upstream -snapshot branchs (instead of the -release branch). The former maintainer of opensmtpd had finally orphaned opensmtpd two weeks ago, at which point I merged my old package's votes and comments into "opensmtpd". In any case, opensmtpd-portable and opensmtpd-portable-snapshot both had 7 votes, and maintained by me. opensmtpd was out-of-date about 5 months ago, and had just 2 votes. Even if the name differed, it's clear which one was the real up-to-date package. In any case, I don't want to extend this discussion any further, you contacted the at-the-time maintainer and I guess that's what matters. There's little point arguing about this any further. > > I usually post a comment before removing package from AUR to notify > the old maintainer. Do I have forgot? > I think y're *very* light when you claims: you didn't contact the maintainer. > > Anyway, it's pure courtesy and not really the real reason of the complain. > > Secondly, I confirm, there was no rush. To give you more context, I've > my own opensmtpd package running on my computers since the first > releases of opensmtpd. Before pushing the package I telling myself : > "Oh I it works correctly on my stuff for weeks, it's on abs for 1 > week, I can push it to community". > So, I'm not a serial packager ! > > Emotional comments, like your and Hugo come time to time, usually on > aur-general, when packages are moved from AUR to community. AUR > PKGBUILD are _not_ the property of the maintainer (even if he's a good > guy who drink beer) and sending a mail can be automated by AUR to says > : "You're package have been removed. Thanks for you support :)" On the contraty, I'm glad to see it moved into community, but I would have greatly prefered to see a compatible package (ie: very similar flags, config paths, etc) to avoid having to "migrate" to it. > > Cheers, > > -- > Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer > https://www.seblu.net > GPG: 0x2072D77A Cheers, -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera pgp983DLWkKZ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Down wrote: > On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera > I must say I do find it a bit off that a package with a conflicting name would > be added without even attempting to contact the AUR maintainer. There was no > rush to upload this package. You could have contacted him just to say what you > were doing, but you didn't. Hi Chris, First, there was more than one packages in AUR (opensmtpd, opensmtpd-portable, etc). I hope others maintainers will not claims kinship. I have contacted, AUR opensmtpd maintainer by mail in march to ask him to update because the package was was out-of-date since weeks. He doesn't answer and it's not the same email that Hugo. I'm wondering if Hugo was maintainer of opensmtpd for more than 2 weeks. I usually post a comment before removing package from AUR to notify the old maintainer. Do I have forgot? I think y're *very* light when you claims: you didn't contact the maintainer. Anyway, it's pure courtesy and not really the real reason of the complain. Secondly, I confirm, there was no rush. To give you more context, I've my own opensmtpd package running on my computers since the first releases of opensmtpd. Before pushing the package I telling myself : "Oh I it works correctly on my stuff for weeks, it's on abs for 1 week, I can push it to community". So, I'm not a serial packager ! Emotional comments, like your and Hugo come time to time, usually on aur-general, when packages are moved from AUR to community. AUR PKGBUILD are _not_ the property of the maintainer (even if he's a good guy who drink beer) and sending a mail can be automated by AUR to says : "You're package have been removed. Thanks for you support :)" Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera > wrote: > > One of the problems with the new package in [community], is that it's > > build configuration differs SO MUCH from the defaults (and my own > > package), that their settings are incompatible. I belive this goes > > against the Arch way, which is to stay as close as possible to upstream. > Dude. Against the Arch way... you are harsh. > > There is NO patch[1]. Only configure options (provided by upstream). Yes, but they differ from the defaults for no aparent reason. For example, since the sysconfdir was different, upon update, my email stop being sent from most machines (only my desktop kept working, since I run opensmtpd-snapshot on it). Also, since the user that runs smtpd is different, my spool was inaccesible to the daemon once I fixed that. > > > Also, the one in [community] has explicit flags that actually reduce > > security (for what reason, I wonder?). > Please open a bug report[2] and explain where I made a mistake. I'll > be pleased to fix it. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/34835 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/34836 > > > At first, I though I'd contact the author, but I couldn't find out > > how. The PKGBUILD does not include the maintainer's email, and he's not > > listed as a TU or Dev. > You can find me on the TU page[3] and details about opensmtpd in the > package page[4] (hint: Maintainer field). Indeed, you're in the TU page, so that was my mistake. I think I use ctrl+f, and didn't type in the accent when searching for you > > > Finally, I'm a bit surprised as to how this happened. I planned to > > propose to move my own package from AUR to [community] at some point, > > but not yet, since it only has 7 votes (way less than what the wiki > > describes neccesary). > > Be delighted with this move. You will not have to maintain it yourself > anymore. > No need to thanks TUs and Developers for their work. It's free as beer. Mind you, I *am* thankful, and I'm glad that opensmtpd moved into [community], since it's a piece of software I'd very much like to see grow and this is a huge step in that direction. But it would have been nice to have gotten some notice or something, since I maintained an extremely similar packge in AUR. I know you didn't base your package on mine, but just as a simple courtesy/heads up. > > > Secondly, I'm confused as to how this is done. If > > there's a package in AUR, isn't that moved into [community] instead of > > writing a brand new one? > I'm sorry, I doesn't took your package. I was not "inspired" by what > you do and I started a new one from scratch. > No offense! No offense taken, though I'm actually curious as to why that was. > > > Please don't take this as a rant of "You broke my email setup!", > > but rather as a "Hey, this isn't very transpart to the community; how > > do these thing happen? How do I contact the maintainer? What was the > > procedure to get this package into [community]? Is there any way I can > > participate in it's maintenence?" > Transpart? Oops, I meant transparent. For example, I had not expected it to be possible to move opensmtpd into [community] due to the low amount of votes the package had, so I was rather curious as to HOW that package made it into [community]. This has been clarified offlist though. > > You can participate by suggesting new behaviour / stuff into our bug > report system[2]. By offering your help to upstream developper. > Or if you want helps Archlinux on more than one package, you can start > walk the path to become a TU. I've honestly considered this a few times, but I don't really participate in IRC/forums enough to qualify, IMHO. Nor am I familiar with any TU to seek sponorship. > > Cheers, > > [1] > https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/opensmtpd > [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/ > [3] https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/ > [4] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/opensmtpd/ > > -- > Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer > https://www.seblu.net > GPG: 0x2072D77A -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera pgp35ObNGfgXc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera > > Finally, I'm a bit surprised as to how this happened. I planned to > > propose to move my own package from AUR to [community] at some point, > > but not yet, since it only has 7 votes (way less than what the wiki > > describes neccesary). > > Be delighted with this move. You will not have to maintain it yourself > anymore. > No need to thanks TUs and Developers for their work. It's free as beer. > > > Secondly, I'm confused as to how this is done. If > > there's a package in AUR, isn't that moved into [community] instead of > > writing a brand new one? > I'm sorry, I doesn't took your package. I was not "inspired" by what > you do and I started a new one from scratch. > No offense! I must say I do find it a bit off that a package with a conflicting name would be added without even attempting to contact the AUR maintainer. There was no rush to upload this package. You could have contacted him just to say what you were doing, but you didn't. > > Please don't take this as a rant of "You broke my email setup!", > > but rather as a "Hey, this isn't very transpart to the community; how > > do these thing happen? How do I contact the maintainer? What was the > > procedure to get this package into [community]? Is there any way I can > > participate in it's maintenence?" > Transpart? Probably should be "transparent". Chris pgpJYLbjddVQE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > One of the problems with the new package in [community], is that it's > build configuration differs SO MUCH from the defaults (and my own > package), that their settings are incompatible. I belive this goes > against the Arch way, which is to stay as close as possible to upstream. Dude. Against the Arch way... you are harsh. There is NO patch[1]. Only configure options (provided by upstream). > Also, the one in [community] has explicit flags that actually reduce > security (for what reason, I wonder?). Please open a bug report[2] and explain where I made a mistake. I'll be pleased to fix it. > At first, I though I'd contact the author, but I couldn't find out > how. The PKGBUILD does not include the maintainer's email, and he's not > listed as a TU or Dev. You can find me on the TU page[3] and details about opensmtpd in the package page[4] (hint: Maintainer field). > Finally, I'm a bit surprised as to how this happened. I planned to > propose to move my own package from AUR to [community] at some point, > but not yet, since it only has 7 votes (way less than what the wiki > describes neccesary). Be delighted with this move. You will not have to maintain it yourself anymore. No need to thanks TUs and Developers for their work. It's free as beer. > Secondly, I'm confused as to how this is done. If > there's a package in AUR, isn't that moved into [community] instead of > writing a brand new one? I'm sorry, I doesn't took your package. I was not "inspired" by what you do and I started a new one from scratch. No offense! > Please don't take this as a rant of "You broke my email setup!", > but rather as a "Hey, this isn't very transpart to the community; how > do these thing happen? How do I contact the maintainer? What was the > procedure to get this package into [community]? Is there any way I can > participate in it's maintenence?" Transpart? You can participate by suggesting new behaviour / stuff into our bug report system[2]. By offering your help to upstream developper. Or if you want helps Archlinux on more than one package, you can start walk the path to become a TU. Cheers, [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/opensmtpd [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/ [3] https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/ [4] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/opensmtpd/ -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
Another place to look for packages from [core], [extra], [community], [multilib] and their respective [*testing]-equivalents is https://archlinux.org/packages. Sometimes the search mask is counterintuitive, but it gets the job done. Greetings, Christoph signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
Am 17.04.2013 13:28, schrieb Hugo Osvaldo Barrera: > Hi, > > All of a sudden, this morning, after running pacman -Syu, I found myself > incapable of sending emails from several of my machines. > I had noticed not warnings, or errors, and, after tracking the issue > for a while, it turns out the problem was the new opensmtpd package in > [community], which had replaced my own one (present in AUR). > > I've been maintaining an opensmtpd package in AUR for a long time now > (it was recently renamed to "opensmtpd", but I had maintaing it under the > previous name since it's early development, which I follow very closely). > > One of the problems with the new package in [community], is that it's > build configuration differs SO MUCH from the defaults (and my own > package), that their settings are incompatible. I belive this goes > against the Arch way, which is to stay as close as possible to upstream. > > Also, the one in [community] has explicit flags that actually reduce > security (for what reason, I wonder?). > > At first, I though I'd contact the author, but I couldn't find out > how. The PKGBUILD does not include the maintainer's email, and he's not > listed as a TU or Dev. > > Finally, I'm a bit surprised as to how this happened. I planned to > propose to move my own package from AUR to [community] at some point, > but not yet, since it only has 7 votes (way less than what the wiki > describes neccesary). Secondly, I'm confused as to how this is done. If > there's a package in AUR, isn't that moved into [community] instead of > writing a brand new one? > > Please don't take this as a rant of "You broke my email setup!", > but rather as a "Hey, this isn't very transpart to the community; how > do these thing happen? How do I contact the maintainer? What was the > procedure to get this package into [community]? Is there any way I can > participate in it's maintenence?" > > Thanks, > Here is the email of the packager. % pacman -Si opensmtpd ... Packager: Sébastien Luttringer ... The output is broken when running with LC_ALL=C.
Re: [arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
On 2013-04-17 08:28, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > At first, I though I'd contact the author, but I couldn't find out > how. The PKGBUILD does not include the maintainer's email, and he's not > listed as a TU or Dev. The maintainer is Sébastien Luttringer, as is shown by pacman -Si. $ pacman -Si opensmtpd | grep Packager Packager : Sébastien Luttringer I have CC'd him. I don't know how you found it difficult to find his e-mail. Chris pgpSJrQZRHGYW.pgp Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package
Hi, All of a sudden, this morning, after running pacman -Syu, I found myself incapable of sending emails from several of my machines. I had noticed not warnings, or errors, and, after tracking the issue for a while, it turns out the problem was the new opensmtpd package in [community], which had replaced my own one (present in AUR). I've been maintaining an opensmtpd package in AUR for a long time now (it was recently renamed to "opensmtpd", but I had maintaing it under the previous name since it's early development, which I follow very closely). One of the problems with the new package in [community], is that it's build configuration differs SO MUCH from the defaults (and my own package), that their settings are incompatible. I belive this goes against the Arch way, which is to stay as close as possible to upstream. Also, the one in [community] has explicit flags that actually reduce security (for what reason, I wonder?). At first, I though I'd contact the author, but I couldn't find out how. The PKGBUILD does not include the maintainer's email, and he's not listed as a TU or Dev. Finally, I'm a bit surprised as to how this happened. I planned to propose to move my own package from AUR to [community] at some point, but not yet, since it only has 7 votes (way less than what the wiki describes neccesary). Secondly, I'm confused as to how this is done. If there's a package in AUR, isn't that moved into [community] instead of writing a brand new one? Please don't take this as a rant of "You broke my email setup!", but rather as a "Hey, this isn't very transpart to the community; how do these thing happen? How do I contact the maintainer? What was the procedure to get this package into [community]? Is there any way I can participate in it's maintenence?" Thanks, -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera pgpeUxKnxFfcU.pgp Description: PGP signature
