Re: [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
On 11/13/10 15:44, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Saturday 13 November 2010 14:46:30 Andrea Scarpino wrote: Nice, today we have 291 orphans packages in [extra] (they were 352 three days ago). 62 will be moved to [community]. 127 to AUR. I didn't expect this success. I can start moving them today if you agree. Full lists: COMMUNITY twinkle... /COMMUNITY AUR commoncpp2... libzrtpcpp... /AUR Twinkle depends on commoncpp2 and libzrtpcpp, so the latter have to be in at least [community] in order for Twinkle to be. -Isaac
Re: [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Isaac Dupree m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote: On 11/13/10 15:44, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Saturday 13 November 2010 14:46:30 Andrea Scarpino wrote: Nice, today we have 291 orphans packages in [extra] (they were 352 three days ago). 62 will be moved to [community]. 127 to AUR. I didn't expect this success. I can start moving them today if you agree. Full lists: COMMUNITY twinkle... /COMMUNITY AUR commoncpp2... libzrtpcpp... /AUR Twinkle depends on commoncpp2 and libzrtpcpp, so the latter have to be in at least [community] in order for Twinkle to be. -Isaac Submit a bug report if it hasn't been done already.
Re: [aur-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
On 11/16/10 03:27, Eric Bélanger wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Isaac Dupree m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote: Twinkle depends on commoncpp2 and libzrtpcpp, so the latter have to be in at least [community] in order for Twinkle to be. -Isaac Submit a bug report if it hasn't been done already. OK, hopefully I did it correctly. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21712 -Isaac
[aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Hi TUs, we are here again. After the success with [extra] (DEVs adopted ~80 packages, TUs ~60), I want to reduce the number of orphans packages in [community]. Actually, they are 84 (82, I just adopted two...). The list is here[1]. Simply cross out the package which you want to maintain in [community]. Adoption is not required, but would be nice. Packages will be moved to AUR this Saturday 20th. Thanks [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Community_Repo_Cleanup -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:34:11 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org: Hi TUs, we are here again. After the success with [extra] (DEVs adopted ~80 packages, TUs ~60), I want to reduce the number of orphans packages in [community]. Actually, they are 84 (82, I just adopted two...). The list is here[1]. Simply cross out the package which you want to maintain in [community]. Adoption is not required, but would be nice. Packages will be moved to AUR this Saturday 20th. Thanks [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Community_Repo_Cleanup squashfs-tools What have you told me about that when you have moved this from [extra] to [community]? Now it shall be moved to AUR? And why was it moved to [community] if it is an orphan there? And isn't this needed to building LiveCDs including the Arch Linux installation CDs? You really should think about that. Heiko
[aur-general] Delete request
Please remove akonadi-svn [1]. It is replaced by akonadi-git [2] now. Thanks [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16891 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43632 -- -- Dan Vrátil vra...@progdansoft.com Tel: +4202 732 326 870 Jabber: prog...@jabber.cz Tento email neobsahuje žádné viry, protože odesílatel nepoužívá Windows. / This email does not contain any viruses because the sender does not use Windows.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:03:14 Heiko Baums wrote: squashfs-tools What have you told me about that when you have moved this from [extra] to [community]? Now it shall be moved to AUR? And why was it moved to [community] if it is an orphan there? And isn't this needed to building LiveCDs including the Arch Linux installation CDs? Man you know that is a draft. I don't remember who wants to adopt squashfs- tools now, but surely a TU want because it has been moved to [community] recently. -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] Delete request
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:09:21 Dan Vrátil wrote: Please remove akonadi-svn [1]. It is replaced by akonadi-git [2] now. Done. Thanks -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
[aur-general] Delete Request
Well, please remove qutim-otr-git (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43571). I've replaced it by qutim-plugin-otr-git (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43633) to keep the naming convention used by other qutim plugins rather then just use the git-name ;) Cheers,
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:12:23 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org: Man you know that is a draft. I don't remember who wants to adopt squashfs- tools now, but surely a TU want because it has been moved to [community] recently. Man, you know that you have removed most of the packages from your draft from [extra]. And I need to install three times as many packages from AUR as I needed three years ago just because they have been removed from the repos to AUR. And the repos of Arch Linux are pretty small compared to other distros anyway. That's always mentioned as disadvantage in reviews of Arch Linux. This is a bit compensated by AUR, but if you regularly move important or popular packages to AUR then Arch Linux will become a second Gentoo and for some people who want or need a binary distro unusable. And no, Arch Linux is not a distro from developers for developers anymore. This may have been in the beginning or Arch Linux but is not true anymore. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] Delete Request
On 16/11/10 13:33, Ivo Senner wrote: Well, please remove qutim-otr-git (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43571). I've replaced it by qutim-plugin-otr-git (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43633) to keep the naming convention used by other qutim plugins rather then just use the git-name ;) Le done.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 16/11/10 21:48, Heiko Baums wrote: And no, Arch Linux is not a distro from developers for developers anymore. This may have been in the beginning or Arch Linux but is not true anymore. It is true as long as the developers say it is true. Just because I tell GM their car is an aeroplane does not mean they will start flying. Allan
[aur-general] why the latex-beamer package?
Hello, A latex-beamer package seems to have entered [community] recently. Is that an error ? The beamer package for LaTeX is already included in texlive-core, and moreover this package seems to depend on tetex (!) and installs files in the middle of the texlive tree. Regards, Rémy.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:54:23 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: It is true as long as the developers say it is true. Just because I tell GM their car is an aeroplane does not mean they will start flying. Wrong. It is true as soon as a distro becomes more and more popular. And this is the case for Arch Linux. As long as a distro is unknown and only used by a few people, mainly its developers, this distro may only be from the devs for the devs. But as soon as it is mentioned together with and equivalent to the other big distros and gets more popular this is not true anymore independent from what a single developer says. Otherwise you should write a big note on the homepage and/or the download page that this distro is free but not meant to be used for the public. Feel free to use it but don't expect anything. This distro is only meant to be used by us developers. Or something like this. Maybe a bit exaggerated. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] why the latex-beamer package?
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:59:56 Rémy Oudompheng wrote: A latex-beamer package seems to have entered [community] recently. Is that an error ? The beamer package for LaTeX is already included in texlive-core, and moreover this package seems to depend on tetex (!) and installs files in the middle of the texlive tree. Filed a bug report: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21714 -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 16/11/10 22:06, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:54:23 +1000 schrieb Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org: It is true as long as the developers say it is true. Just because I tell GM their car is an aeroplane does not mean they will start flying. Wrong. Really, cars will start flying if we just tell the manufactures it is so? Because I have been waiting for that for a long time... It is true as soon as a distro becomes more and more popular. And this is the case for Arch Linux. As long as a distro is unknown and only used by a few people, mainly its developers, this distro may only be from the devs for the devs. But as soon as it is mentioned together with and equivalent to the other big distros and gets more popular this is not true anymore independent from what a single developer says. But what actually makes you think that you can expect anything from the distro apart from whatever the developers decide? Just because people use the distribution does not mean their opinions count for anything. In fact, the opinions of 99% of the users of this distro do not count for anything because they contribute nothing towards the distribution. Now, if someone wants to pay me and others to develop the distro, then their opinions will count. Otherwise, I am working for free and so I am king of what I decide to do. Otherwise you should write a big note on the homepage and/or the download page that this distro is free but not meant to be used for the public. Feel free to use it but don't expect anything. This distro is only meant to be used by us developers. Or something like this. Maybe a bit exaggerated. Slightly exaggerated. But perhaps we do need that to keep people from forming such unfounded ideas about their opinions counting towards anything around here. Allan
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:48:03 Heiko Baums wrote: Man, you know that you have removed most of the packages from your draft from [extra]. Man, you know my list was made by 352 packages and I removed only ~180. Not every package in that list will be removed so calm down. And I need to install three times as many packages from AUR as I needed three years ago just because they have been removed from the repos to AUR. This is the third or fourth time that you repeat this. Do you think that I care about it? I already told you: if you want to add those packages, apply as TU. You are welcome. If you cannot and if you have not the time to build an updated version of a package you should think about switch distro. And the repos of Arch Linux are pretty small compared to other distros anyway. That's always mentioned as disadvantage in reviews of Arch Linux. This is a bit compensated by AUR, but if you regularly move important or popular packages to AUR then Arch Linux will become a second Gentoo and for some people who want or need a binary distro unusable. I don't care about comparisons with others distro. Let people use what they need, not the distro with more binaries. -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue 16 Nov 2010 13:06 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:54:23 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: It is true as long as the developers say it is true. Just because I tell GM their car is an aeroplane does not mean they will start flying. Wrong. It is true as soon as a distro becomes more and more popular. And this is the case for Arch Linux. As long as a distro is unknown and only used by a few people, mainly its developers, this distro may only be from the devs for the devs. But as soon as it is mentioned together with and equivalent to the other big distros and gets more popular this is not true anymore independent from what a single developer says. Otherwise you should write a big note on the homepage and/or the download page that this distro is free but not meant to be used for the public. Feel free to use it but don't expect anything. This distro is only meant to be used by us developers. Or something like this. Maybe a bit exaggerated. You're right. A lot of open source software does have that no guarantee, no liability disclaimer. Maybe it should be made more obvious. Anyways, Arch Linux isn't bound by any unwritten or unspoken contracts saying that it must deliver a certain level of support after reaching a certain popularity. If you want that support, then go a head and contribute the resources. I really don't forsee the distro signing any support contracts though.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:36:59 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com: You're right. A lot of open source software does have that no guarantee, no liability disclaimer. Maybe it should be made more obvious. Anyways, Arch Linux isn't bound by any unwritten or unspoken contracts saying that it must deliver a certain level of support after reaching a certain popularity. If you want that support, then go a head and contribute the resources. I really don't forsee the distro signing any support contracts though. I'm not talking about contracts. But regardless of any contracts developers shouldn't ignore user's comments and opinions. I'm just talking about such an ignorant and sometimes arrogant behaviour of some devs which is seen sometimes in flyspray and on the mailing list. This makes using a distro and contributing to a distro no fun. And I haven't seen such an ignorance in other distros, yet. That's the point. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:25:34 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org: Really, cars will start flying if we just tell the manufactures it is so? Because I have been waiting for that for a long time... Do you always compare apples and oranges? But what actually makes you think that you can expect anything from the distro apart from whatever the developers decide? I generally don't expect anything. And I really respect the voluntary work. And I guess you haven't read many/any overbearing claims from me. But I expect from a developer that he doesn't remove popular packages inconsiderately from the repos. (Otherwise don't call Arch Linux a binary distro.) I expect from a developer that he uses his brain. Sorry for this wording. And I expect from a developer that he isn't arrogant and ignorant to users and that he listens to the user's opinion and respects their opinions. Just because people use the distribution does not mean their opinions count for anything. In fact, the opinions of 99% of the users of this distro do not count for anything because they contribute nothing towards the distribution. Have you thought of people who are not able to program or to write documentations or the like? Have you thought of people who just use their computers as an electronic typewriter or for looking for e-mails etc.? Do you really expect every usual computer user to learn a programming language? Btw., I'm already maintaining some AUR packages, worked on a wiki page for one of these packages. So don't tell me I wouldn't contribute anything. Now, if someone wants to pay me and others to develop the distro, then their opinions will count. Otherwise, I am working for free and so I am king of what I decide to do. You may decide what to do. But you should take the user's opinions or wishes into account. Slightly exaggerated. But perhaps we do need that to keep people from forming such unfounded ideas about their opinions counting towards anything around here. Really, these are not unfounded ideas. And you and some other devs (thankfully not all of them) should reflect about your ignorance. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 22:25 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: On 16/11/10 22:06, Heiko Baums wrote: Otherwise you should write a big note on the homepage and/or the download page that this distro is free but not meant to be used for the public. Feel free to use it but don't expect anything. This distro is only meant to be used by us developers. Or something like this. Maybe a bit exaggerated. Slightly exaggerated. But perhaps we do need that to keep people from forming such unfounded ideas about their opinions counting towards anything around here. Allan I thought this idea of Heiko's was a great idea, myself. In a fit of inspiration, here's a suggestion. This would be placed after the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the 3-paragraph description. This community involvement allows developers to focus on what's most important to them in the knowledge that the community will provide high quality packages for everything else. Just a draft, doesn't really express everything yet. Should I open a bug-report? And Heiko, I'm not sure why you're making a big fuss over these packages. Its not even much harder to work from the AUR. Comparisons to Gentoo are ridiculous. I've got 75 packages from the AUR currently, and I don't spend hours a day compiling. The longest package to compile is probably samba4 at 20 minutes, followed by the kernel at 10 minutes (optimized), everything else tops out at 1-2 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee, and consider the difference to the hours and hours you'd have spent compiling world on Gentoo.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Hi, I think there is no need to move orphaned package to AUR until it works and does not have critical/security bugs.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 17/11/10 00:53, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:34:51 +1000 schrieb Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org: There is a difference between ignorance and not giving a shit... Right, giving a shit is also arrogant. So now you are equating arrogant and ignorant? And did you miss a not there? Because giving a shit is rarely arrogant unless you take it too an extreme. In conclusion, you make very poor arguments with logical fallacies everywhere. No wonder you never seem to get your way. Allan (the ever pedantic bastard...)
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 11/16/2010 05:07 PM, Allan McRae wrote: On 17/11/10 00:53, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:34:51 +1000 schrieb Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org: There is a difference between ignorance and not giving a shit... Right, giving a shit is also arrogant. So now you are equating arrogant and ignorant? And did you miss a not there? Because giving a shit is rarely arrogant unless you take it too an extreme. In conclusion, you make very poor arguments with logical fallacies everywhere. No wonder you never seem to get your way. Allan (the ever pedantic bastard...) GET A ROOM -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Excerpts from Heiko Baums's message of 2010-11-16 12:48:03 +0100: Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:12:23 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org: Man you know that is a draft. I don't remember who wants to adopt squashfs- tools now, but surely a TU want because it has been moved to [community] recently. Man, you know that you have removed most of the packages from your draft from [extra]. And I need to install three times as many packages from AUR as I needed three years ago just because they have been removed from the repos to AUR. And the repos of Arch Linux are pretty small compared to other distros anyway. That's always mentioned as disadvantage in reviews of Arch Linux. This is a bit compensated by AUR, but if you regularly move important or popular packages to AUR then Arch Linux will become a second Gentoo and for some people who want or need a binary distro unusable. The problem with Arch becoming a second gentoo is that it would be a far worse gentoo. AUR isn't exactly convenient. Sure there are helper programs, but each one I tried buggy or lacking. I doubt maintaining source packages in gentoo is as much a PITA as it is in Arch. It's less a PITA in Arch than in binary distros, but still only really usable as long as Arch is mainly a binary distro. My point in short: Arch is great as long most packages you need are binaries and only some are from source. If Arch requires you to build lots of packages from source it's the worst of both worlds. And no, Arch Linux is not a distro from developers for developers anymore. This may have been in the beginning or Arch Linux but is not true anymore. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Excerpts from Heiko Baums's message of 2010-11-16 15:02:19 +0100: Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:27:50 +0800 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: I thought this idea of Heiko's was a great idea, myself. In a fit of inspiration, here's a suggestion. This would be placed after the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the 3-paragraph description. This community involvement allows developers to focus on what's most important to them in the knowledge that the community will provide high quality packages for everything else. Maybe there should be added that Arch Linux is only a distro from its devs for its devs and not from the community for the community. I wish you wouldn't add such a paragraph. Instead the ignorance of some devs should be removed. That was the better way. And Heiko, I'm not sure why you're making a big fuss over these packages. Its not even much harder to work from the AUR. Comparisons to Gentoo are ridiculous. I've got 75 packages from the AUR currently, and I don't spend hours a day compiling. The longest package to compile is probably samba4 at 20 minutes, followed by the kernel at 10 minutes (optimized), everything else tops out at 1-2 minutes. Go have a cup of coffee, and consider the difference to the hours and hours you'd have spent compiling world on Gentoo. I already used Gentoo for 6 years. So I know what that compiling means. That's why I was looking for a binary distro in the style of Gentoo. That's why I came to Arch Linux 3 or 4 years ago. And the more small packages need to be compiled from AUR the more time it takes compiling them. Many a little makes a mickle. It's not at all about compile times IMHO but about the effort necessary to keeping source packages up-to-date. Doing this manually would be a major PITA for even a relatively small number of packages. AUR helpers like slurpy help a bit, but the required effort is still significantly higher than with binary packages. How much effort it requires depends IMHO almost entirely on the number of packages. JFYI I currently maintain 89 AUR packages and have probably about 180 AUR packages from other maintainers installed. There is does mean effort, believe me or not. My main problems are this mass cleanup and the ignorant responses I get from some devs to such remarks or to some bug reports etc. That's why I make such a fuss. Heiko
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 16 November 2010 15:21, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote: Hi, I think there is no need to move orphaned package to AUR until it works and does not have critical/security bugs. +1. Why remove working packages?
[aur-general] delete package
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Removed, thanks.
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro Please add the name of the package(s) when you request deletion. Else it's hard to know which package has been deleted. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [aur-general] delete package
Will do, sorry. 2010/11/16 Cédric Girard girard.ced...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro Please add the name of the package(s) when you request deletion. Else it's hard to know which package has been deleted. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [aur-general] delete package
This one was adeskbar-archbang BTW. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: Will do, sorry. 2010/11/16 Cédric Girard girard.ced...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro Please add the name of the package(s) when you request deletion. Else it's hard to know which package has been deleted. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:08 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote: My point in short: Arch is great as long most packages you need are binaries and only some are from source. If Arch requires you to build lots of packages from source it's the worst of both worlds. Have you seen the list of software getting moved? I've only seen one person describe them collectively as 'many important' packages. Almost none of which I've heard of before, of course This thread started with the assertion that 'many important' packages are getting moved to the AUR. I believe this assertion to be false, as, obviously, do the devs. Historically from reading [arch-dev-public] the devs have been careful to continue maintaining packages none of them use if its seen as crucial to a large majority of users. None of the packages being moved fit these criteria. At all.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:27 +0100, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: On 16 November 2010 15:21, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote: Hi, I think there is no need to move orphaned package to AUR until it works and does not have critical/security bugs. +1. Why remove working packages? If unmaintained, then why not let someone who actually uses the package maintain it? Its not like the packages are gone forever. The exact same PKGBUILDs are now on the AUR, so you can still use the packages. Or update them if you're interested. The only 'loss' is to those who don't have a package installed, they'd now have to install something from the AUR. Big deal.
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: This one was adeskbar-archbang BTW. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: Will do, sorry. 2010/11/16 Cédric Girard girard.ced...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Joao Cordeiro jlcorde...@gmail.com wrote: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37737 Maintainer asked for it. Also, theres this package to replace it: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26910 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro Please add the name of the package(s) when you request deletion. Else it's hard to know which package has been deleted. -- Cédric Girard Thanks. -- Cédric Girard
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
At Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:15:44 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:27 +0100, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: On 16 November 2010 15:21, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote: Hi, I think there is no need to move orphaned package to AUR until it works and does not have critical/security bugs. +1. Why remove working packages? If unmaintained, then why not let someone who actually uses the package maintain it? I prefer working binary out-of-date package than up-to-date which should be compiled from AUR.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 17:51:44 Sergej Pupykin wrote: I prefer working binary out-of-date package than up-to-date which should be compiled from AUR. An up-to-date package includes upstream fixes, so I prefer an up-to-date PKGBUILD from AUR. -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] Who wants a cloak on IRC?
A cloak is what I request. What I request a cloak is. A request is what I cloak. I request what is a cloak. me too. too me, please. :-)
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
At Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:02:35 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Tuesday 16 November 2010 17:51:44 Sergej Pupykin wrote: I prefer working binary out-of-date package than up-to-date which should be compiled from AUR. An up-to-date package includes upstream fixes, so I prefer an up-to-date PKGBUILD from AUR. I mean only well working packages, so no critical fixes needed.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-11-16 17:13:47 +0100: On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:08 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote: My point in short: Arch is great as long most packages you need are binaries and only some are from source. If Arch requires you to build lots of packages from source it's the worst of both worlds. Have you seen the list of software getting moved? I've only seen one person describe them collectively as 'many important' packages. Almost none of which I've heard of before, of course This thread started with the assertion that 'many important' packages are getting moved to the AUR. I believe this assertion to be false, as, obviously, do the devs. Historically from reading [arch-dev-public] the devs have been careful to continue maintaining packages none of them use if its seen as crucial to a large majority of users. None of the packages being moved fit these criteria. At all. I see your point. I looked through the [extra] - [] list yesterday or so and was a bit shocked at first until I saw that most of the packages I considered important would be maintained in community. However, what I tried to point out is what would happen if a binary - source trend develops. One other thing: The lists are based on orphans. My impression was that it's common practice among developers to adopt - update - orphan. Based on this I wonder whether it's sensible to create lists of removal candidates based on orphans.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 15:06:33 Ionuț Bîru wrote: On 11/16/2010 05:07 PM, Allan McRae wrote: On 17/11/10 00:53, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:34:51 +1000 schrieb Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org: There is a difference between ignorance and not giving a shit... Right, giving a shit is also arrogant. So now you are equating arrogant and ignorant? And did you miss a not there? Because giving a shit is rarely arrogant unless you take it too an extreme. In conclusion, you make very poor arguments with logical fallacies everywhere. No wonder you never seem to get your way. Allan (the ever pedantic bastard...) GET A ROOM Awesome. Second only to Xyne's Cared thou not, thou would have abstained message:
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 15:06:33 Ionuț Bîru wrote: On 11/16/2010 05:07 PM, Allan McRae wrote: On 17/11/10 00:53, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:34:51 +1000 schrieb Allan McRaeal...@archlinux.org: There is a difference between ignorance and not giving a shit... Right, giving a shit is also arrogant. So now you are equating arrogant and ignorant? And did you miss a not there? Because giving a shit is rarely arrogant unless you take it too an extreme. In conclusion, you make very poor arguments with logical fallacies everywhere. No wonder you never seem to get your way. Allan (the ever pedantic bastard...) GET A ROOM Awesome. Second only in in terms of mailing list awesomeness to Xyne's Cared thou not, thou would have abstained message: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-September/010709.html
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On 16 November 2010 19:03, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:34:11 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org: Hi TUs, we are here again. After the success with [extra] (DEVs adopted ~80 packages, TUs ~60), I want to reduce the number of orphans packages in [community]. Actually, they are 84 (82, I just adopted two...). The list is here[1]. Simply cross out the package which you want to maintain in [community]. Adoption is not required, but would be nice. Packages will be moved to AUR this Saturday 20th. Thanks [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Community_Repo_Cleanup squashfs-tools What have you told me about that when you have moved this from [extra] to [community]? Now it shall be moved to AUR? And why was it moved to [community] if it is an orphan there? And isn't this needed to building LiveCDs including the Arch Linux installation CDs? You really should think about that. Man, you are right. In fact, I was just studying archiso and squashfs-tools is one of the dependencies. If no-one is going to maintain it, I will :) See, as long as it's important and there is someone on the team who actually needs it, it'll be fine. I was a Gentoo user just like you, and came to Arch Linux for exactly the same reasons. I do not think it is straying away just because some orphaned packages are being dropped to AUR. So, come on board and save them! Even if something's dropped, it's not like it can't be adopted back if and when deemed important. It is not the end! You see, the way Arch started and the way it is now is not going to be any different just because it has grown popular. I think you should know this very well, being an Archer for some time. This is not the first time we have had disagreements between users (a developer/TU is a user). For some historical fun, google the term 'archmilkers'.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:09:35 +0100 schrieb Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de: But I expect from a developer that he doesn't remove popular packages inconsiderately from the repos. (Otherwise don't call Arch Linux a binary distro.) I expect from a developer that he uses his brain. Sorry for this wording. The Devs provide a basic distro + _some_ binary packages. We had a conclusion to provide a core repo that is known to be working and could be the ground to build _yourself_ a system to fit your needs. Take the extra repo as an additional gift some of us like to provide. It costs us a lot of time to maintain binary packages. Nobody is responsible to keep them alive. Packages come in and will fade out once a maintainer looses the interest in it. After some time we can't make sure it's still in a good shape and drop it from our official repo and leave it up to the community. You will have to live with this. -Andy
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org wrote: On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:48:03 Heiko Baums wrote: if you want to add those packages, apply as TU. You are welcome. If you cannot and if you have not the time to build an updated version of a package you should think about switch distro. Hello, I am a new user of arch since 3 months. I take this opportunity, between 2 shots, to propose to adopt package squashfs-tools. But i'm not a TU and i believe, it's necessary. So i need a TU mentor. Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
As already mentioned, many of these packages haven't been updated upstream in a long time, and I doubt many of them will. For example: Name: polymer Upstream: http://static.int.pl/~mig21/dev/releases/polymer/ Description: QT3 port of Plastik Last news update: 14.05.2005 Really? 2005 and QT3? Moral of the story: just adopt them. Chances are you will never have to do any work with them (excluding the ones that *actually* do get upstream changes), and it makes the repo look/function in a whole lot cleaner manner. Regards, Brad
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 00:15 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:27 +0100, Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: On 16 November 2010 15:21, Sergej Pupykin m...@sergej.pp.ru wrote: Hi, I think there is no need to move orphaned package to AUR until it works and does not have critical/security bugs. +1. Why remove working packages? If unmaintained, then why not let someone who actually uses the package maintain it? I actually use python-pyparallel, which is why I stuck my name beside it. Funny that python-pyserial (closely related) is still maintained by the original packager... Gordon MM0YEQ
[aur-general] removal
Please remove webilder http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3708. WA out-dated and replace by webilder-applet http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16807. I _may_ re-upload under original name when/if I get webilder-applet package working 100%
Re: [aur-general] removal
Done. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM, jwbirdsong jwbirds...@jwbirdsong.homelinux.com wrote: Please remove webilder http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3708. WA out-dated and replace by webilder-applet http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16807. I _may_ re-upload under original name when/if I get webilder-applet package working 100% -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 18:28 +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote: Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-11-16 17:13:47 +0100: This thread started with the assertion that 'many important' packages are getting moved to the AUR. I believe this assertion to be false, as, obviously, do the devs. Historically from reading [arch-dev-public] the devs have been careful to continue maintaining packages none of them use if its seen as crucial to a large majority of users. None of the packages being moved fit these criteria. At all. I see your point. I looked through the [extra] - [] list yesterday or so and was a bit shocked at first until I saw that most of the packages I considered important would be maintained in community. However, what I tried to point out is what would happen if a binary - source trend develops. No danger of that happening here. The devs use Arch, why would they move out stuff they consider important? And between them, what they consider important is probably almost everything in a 'base' install for the big distros (Ubuntu, Fedora etc.), because importance also depends on user-base. Higher user-base means its more likely a dev uses it =). One other thing: The lists are based on orphans. My impression was that it's common practice among developers to adopt - update - orphan. Based on this I wonder whether it's sensible to create lists of removal candidates based on orphans. I think that's only common practice for packages where noone really wants them, the initial dev has left/become inactive, so its in a state of limbo, but when devs have the time they look at the 'out-of-date' flag and help out.
[aur-general] delete packages
starcal-new (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32486) starcal-last (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35941) The user was creating a new package every time a new version came out. Since the original starcal was orphaned I updated it and fixed the problem with python (that all the three had.) I think these two should be deleted, even though starcal-new is not orphaned. nppangband-newest (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34119) Duplicate of nppangband from extra. rainlendar-beta (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16491) rainlendar-light is now on version 2.7, rainlendar-beta-unstable is on 2.8.b98. The two of them completely replace it. liferea-dev (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23759) Completely outdated. liferea, liferea-git and liferea-unstable are all up to date, replacing -dev.
Re: [aur-general] delete packages
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:13:14AM +, Joao Cordeiro wrote: starcal-new (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32486) starcal-last (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35941) The user was creating a new package every time a new version came out. Since the original starcal was orphaned I updated it and fixed the problem with python (that all the three had.) I think these two should be deleted, even though starcal-new is not orphaned. nppangband-newest (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34119) Duplicate of nppangband from extra. rainlendar-beta (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16491) rainlendar-light is now on version 2.7, rainlendar-beta-unstable is on 2.8.b98. The two of them completely replace it. liferea-dev (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=23759) Completely outdated. liferea, liferea-git and liferea-unstable are all up to date, replacing -dev. Done, thanks a lot :)
[aur-general] Various new packages in [community]
Dear TUs, I'm Gaetan, a (discreet) junior dev, mentored by Allan. I recently got access to sigurd and thought I would use that opportunity to maintain in [community] a few packages I have been maintaining on the AUR so far, but which are just a bit too unpopular to go to [extra]: pari (fast advanced calculator) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19196 dnstracer (DNS diagnosis tool) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3229 collectd (performance collecting daemon) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2341 They have over thirty votes each. Is it okay by everyone? Cheers. -- Gaetan
Re: [aur-general] Various new packages in [community]
collectd (performance collecting daemon) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2341 I don't know how much my vote counts in this but I would love to some more server-oriented packages in [community]. That being said I looked at the PKGBUILD. It needs to be cleaned up before it can enter [community]. Please try to support as many plugins as you can using makedepends (remove things like hddtemp from depends), and place them instead in optdepends along with a note so that users know which dependencies they need to use the plugin configuration that they want. Thanks, Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
[aur-general] What to do about raggle?
I'm maintaining raggle in [unsupported] and it seems to be broken despite my attempts to patch it as best I can. The project has been abandoned upstream since 2005, and I don't think ruby-ncurses which it depends on really even works. I would delete it except that it has 75 votes. What to do? Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
Before anyone gets any more worked up I wanted to point out that there are only 27 Trusted Users and 32 Developers. In the official repository there are around 4848 packages altogether. That averages out to 82.169 packages per person which is kind of ridiculous considering the Developers have to develop and the Trusted Users have other responsibilities as well. So I think this binary - source phenomenon is just the best that we can do given how shorthanded we all are. I think the philosophy is that anyone can adopt in [unsupported], and if no Developer or Trusted User will adopt a binary package then we should at least give the concerned user a chance to adopt it. Honestly if it were up to me I would remove half of the packages from the official repositories and stick them in the AUR because past 40 your packages start to develop major Quantity over Quality issues and I don't think that's what we're going for. I think this would be a much more constructive conversation if we all stopped complaining about the situation and started talking about how to improve the AUR. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote: Before anyone gets any more worked up I wanted to point out that there are only 27 Trusted Users and 32 Developers. In the official repository there are around 4848 packages altogether. That averages out to 82.169 packages per person which is kind of ridiculous considering the Developers have to develop and the Trusted Users have other responsibilities as well. So I think this binary - source phenomenon is just the best that we can do given how shorthanded we all are. I think the philosophy is that anyone can adopt in [unsupported], and if no Developer or Trusted User will adopt a binary package then we should at least give the concerned user a chance to adopt it. Honestly if it were up to me I would remove half of the packages from the official repositories and stick them in the AUR because past 40 your packages start to develop major Quantity over Quality issues and I don't think that's what we're going for. I think this would be a much more constructive conversation if we all stopped complaining about the situation and started talking about how to improve the AUR. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/ That's not a very good argument. Sergej Pupykin: 1480 packages Jan de Groot: 1094 packages Andrea Scarpino: 809 packages They all do an excellent job with maintaining a massive amount of packages at one time. Therefore, it obviously can be done without the quantity over quality issue that you speak of. Regards, Brad
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Brad Fanella bradfane...@archlinux.us wrote: That's not a very good argument. Sergej Pupykin: 1480 packages Jan de Groot: 1094 packages Andrea Scarpino: 809 packages They all do an excellent job with maintaining a massive amount of packages at one time. Therefore, it obviously can be done without the quantity over quality issue that you speak of. O.O Man, I feel so depressed now, serious... I'm so unproductive and unorganized... Please tell me the that this 3 people are something like Borgs made of hundreds of developers minds linked together... =] (Very best) Regards, Kazuo -- “The journey is more important than the destination—that’s part of life, if you only live for getting to the end, you’re almost always disappointed.” Donald E. Knuth
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
On Tue 16 Nov 2010 21:21 -0600, Brad Fanella wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote: Honestly if it were up to me I would remove half of the packages from the official repositories and stick them in the AUR because past 40 your packages start to develop major Quantity over Quality issues and I don't think that's what we're going for. I think this would be a much more constructive conversation if we all stopped complaining about the situation and started talking about how to improve the AUR. --Kaiting. That's not a very good argument. Sergej Pupykin: 1480 packages Jan de Groot: 1094 packages Andrea Scarpino: 809 packages They all do an excellent job with maintaining a massive amount of packages at one time. Therefore, it obviously can be done without the quantity over quality issue that you speak of. I think he was talking about mere mortals when he wrote that. Kaiting has a very good point though that much could be done to improve the AUR making it easier to deal with source packages and maybe other source based repos in Arch.
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17/11/10 05:21, Brad Fanella wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote: Before anyone gets any more worked up I wanted to point out that there are only 27 Trusted Users and 32 Developers. In the official repository there are around 4848 packages altogether. That averages out to 82.169 packages per person which is kind of ridiculous considering the Developers have to develop and the Trusted Users have other responsibilities as well. So I think this binary - source phenomenon is just the best that we can do given how shorthanded we all are. I think the philosophy is that anyone can adopt in [unsupported], and if no Developer or Trusted User will adopt a binary package then we should at least give the concerned user a chance to adopt it. Honestly if it were up to me I would remove half of the packages from the official repositories and stick them in the AUR because past 40 your packages start to develop major Quantity over Quality issues and I don't think that's what we're going for. I think this would be a much more constructive conversation if we all stopped complaining about the situation and started talking about how to improve the AUR. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/ That's not a very good argument. Sergej Pupykin: 1480 packages Jan de Groot: 1094 packages Andrea Scarpino: 809 packages They all do an excellent job with maintaining a massive amount of packages at one time. Therefore, it obviously can be done without the quantity over quality issue that you speak of. I strongly agree with Kaiting. In my opinion, more than 50-60 packages is pushing it. I doubt the numbers you posted are accurate. For example, (and if I'm not mistaken,) Andrea maintains lots of KDE packages which are split into many sub-packages. The number of actual PKGBUILDs is significantly smaller. This fact makes maintaining all these (sub-)packages much easier. For more precise measurements, you could grep through all PKGBUILDs in /var/abs: $ grep -r '# Maintainer' /var/abs | grep -c Scarpino 152 $ grep -r '# Maintainer' /var/abs | grep -c Groot 456 $ grep -r '# Maintainer' /var/abs | grep -c Pupykin 708 Moreover, for a conservative maintenance time estimation of 10 minutes/package/month, you will need to spend 10 hours each month, updating and solving bugs, for every 60 packages you own. This doesn't scale very well; if you had 300 packages, you'd need to set aside 50 hours each month. Let's not forget we're talking about orphan packages here. This means that nobody is interested in maintaining them. Why exactly should they stay in [community], when someone who cares about them can adopt and maintain them properly in the AUR? - -- Evangelos Foutras -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM41XWAAoJEFHosUipmZw0basH/0tYeoV/IWSh3TxcaCx6pW8q /hBA9A1nHdsyiCRAAHB0pRGe80ELqukmTQyxysKXcmgHxWmjkIM0wvpZXgVAt3ip 6CQf3S6WXo0Ly4glVnQGmj/JhJsLOq27hGJu8YX3BG9cp6cmyJHUefo0TvgnoRrq FauM7smwfhxeOmLOJuQWlaPIgIl58lHx8nLSdfseGY0XMVVETNJHIpo1UXFNIsql NJG4ZTjKJvU8xknJnbshdwY3/E55GUaaksUyEp55cnRj0lWHfqpMSgZ4vjApyqSW pgE8rEK7S8XxkvJiPyoKp82l+V4qW9jtoCMuIiWG2ibGTnwupzEIOEO2zjZHSE8= =ZzEW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start: 1. Integrated distributed version control system 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should probably be carefully controlled) 3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else) 4. An official client 5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better --Kaiting -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] [community] repository cleanup
As already mentioned, many of these packages haven't been updated upstream in a long time, and I doubt many of them will. For example: Name: polymer Upstream: http://static.int.pl/~mig21/dev/releases/polymer/http://static.int.pl/%7Emig21/dev/releases/polymer/ Description: QT3 port of Plastik Last news update: 14.05.2005 Really? 2005 and QT3? Moral of the story: just adopt them. Chances are you will never have to do any work with them (excluding the ones that *actually* do get upstream changes), and it makes the repo look/function in a whole lot cleaner manner I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
On 17/11/10 17:17, Kaiting Chen wrote: How can we make the AUR even better? I think it would be nice if people who click the Notify button get emailed when the package is updated, and not just when someone comments. Some maintainers don't say anything when they update. Jonathan
Re: [aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:17 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote: How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start: Won't comment on the others for now, but... 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should probably be carefully controlled) No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down).
Re: [aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down). First, I'm still not actually sure what kind of resources Arch Linux has and if this would be a problem. Second, it would not if those binaries are hosted elsewhere. There's no way for a vested user to systematically say right now, Hey I've compiled this package if anyone wants it. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
On 17/11/10 17:02, Kaiting Chen wrote: No, if binaries are required it should be in [community]. It would also drastically increase bandwidth requirements (both up and down). First, I'm still not actually sure what kind of resources Arch Linux has and if this would be a problem. Second, it would not if those binaries are hosted elsewhere. There's no way for a vested user to systematically say right now, Hey I've compiled this package if anyone wants it. --Kaiting. Sure there is... and many people have made available repos: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_User_Repositories
Re: [aur-general] AUR Improvement Thread
On 17 November 2010 12:17, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote: How can we make the AUR even better? I'll start: 1. Integrated distributed version control system 0 2. User provided binaries (if case anyone wants to volunteer) (this should probably be carefully controlled) -1 This should _never_ happen. One of the main problems is non-redistributable binaries, and we'll not be able to prevent that. The [community] repository serves this purpose. For anything else, including niche groups, separate projects can be set up. 3. Time-adjusted 'relevance' measure (votes are useful but suck at the same time; nobody cares if a packages was upvoted 9000+ times a million years ago, especially if it's already been obsoleted by something else) 0 4. An official client -1 You should know we do not allow this for a reason. This will never change. 5. LDAP support because LDAP makes everything so much better 0
