[aur-general] python2-simpleparse replaces python-simpleparse / balazar removal
python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming. balazar [2] depends on python 2.x, the project is abandoned and the app segfaults just after the main menu, so the package can be scratched IMO. Guess my request was ignored last week after I mentioned it on irc... ;-P [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11339 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20842 cheers mar77i
Re: [aur-general] python2-simpleparse replaces python-simpleparse / balazar removal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming. balazar [2] depends on python 2.x, the project is abandoned and the app segfaults just after the main menu, so the package can be scratched IMO. Guess my request was ignored last week after I mentioned it on irc... ;-P [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11339 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20842 Deleted both of them, thanks.
Re: [aur-general] python2-simpleparse replaces python-simpleparse / balazar removal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming. cheers mar77i On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Evangelos Foutras foutre...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote: Deleted both of them, thanks. It seems to me that having two packages (python-* and python2-*) would make sense only if that package worked _both_ with python2 and python3. In this particular case, where simpleparse works with python2 only, I don't understand why we can't have it with the original name depending on python2. There are two main advantages: 1) You don't have unnecessary dupes, making it easier for someone searching for packages. Also you would avoid having a package that does not work but isn't outdated or needing any kind of work (besides changing python version). 2) Someone who installed python-simpleparse some months ago would have his package updated and working without any extra work. Please understand that I'm just a normal user and my opinion is worth almost nothing. However, because I adopted a few fine packages that only needed some python2 work, I really wanted to bring this up and understand what is the better way to solve it. Should all foo packages that stopped working because of python3 be deleted and replaced with python2-foo? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Re: [aur-general] python2-simpleparse replaces python-simpleparse / balazar removal
On 15/12/10 13:45, Joao Cordeiro wrote: It seems to me that having two packages (python-* and python2-*) would make sense only if that package worked _both_ with python2 and python3. In this particular case, where simpleparse works with python2 only, I don't understand why we can't have it with the original name depending on python2. We could do that, yes. However, since he already uploaded a python2- package, there was no reason not to delete the python- package. Please understand that I'm just a normal user and my opinion is worth almost nothing. However, because I adopted a few fine packages that only needed some python2 work, I really wanted to bring this up and understand what is the better way to solve it. Should all foo packages that stopped working because of python3 be deleted and replaced with python2-foo? It doesn't make any sense to me. Your sense of the preferred course of action is correct; packages should be renamed lazily. This means that, packages that are not compatible with Python 3 should keep their existing naming. If and when a Python 3 compatible version comes out, a python2- package will be created that will install the module for Python 2, and the python- package will be updated and install the module for Python 3.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
Ronald van Haren wrote: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote: The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendmentoldid=124557 The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities Please see Kaiting's [aur-general]Amendment thread and Loui's [aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure thread for more details. This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote. Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as well. We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that. yes, please provide a patch. Ronald In the time that it would take me to find sources and create a patch you could have easily provided one from the submitted text. If someone wants to point me to the relative source and describe the preferred format of the patch then I will waste some of my time to create it, but I will tell you now that I think the request itself is a bit ridiculous. It's plain text. *sigh*
[aur-general] Package Deletion - gtk2.18
Hello guys, I would like to ask for the deletion of this package http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36204 It was required by another program but it's useless right now. I would also ask for deletion of another two, but i cant exactly tell if they are still used or not by someone else because they got a few votes awhile ago. Thanks in advance, -- Eduardo Martins Lopes Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry Federal University of São Carlos
Re: [aur-general] Package Deletion - gtk2.18
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Eduardo Martins Lopes edumlo...@yahoo.com.br wrote: Hello guys, I would like to ask for the deletion of this package http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36204 It was required by another program but it's useless right now. I would also ask for deletion of another two, but i cant exactly tell if they are still used or not by someone else because they got a few votes awhile ago. Thanks in advance. Done. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Thu 16 Dec 2010 01:32 +0100, Xyne wrote: Ronald van Haren wrote: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org wrote: On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote: The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendmentoldid=124557 The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities Please see Kaiting's [aur-general]Amendment thread and Loui's [aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure thread for more details. This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote. Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as well. We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that. yes, please provide a patch. In the time that it would take me to find sources and create a patch you could have easily provided one from the submitted text. If someone wants to point me to the relative source and describe the preferred format of the patch then I will waste some of my time to create it, but I will tell you now that I think the request itself is a bit ridiculous. It's plain text. Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff. It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any amendment.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
Loui Chang wrote: Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff. It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any amendment. http://aur.pastebin.com/AUvnYAWn
