[aur-general] Errors on submission: Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed
I tried adopted this package (kernel26-yi) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37895 But when I tried to upload an updated PKGBUILD. I got rejected with "Invalid name: only lowercase letters are allowed" I used makepkg --source to generate a file named kernel26-yi-2.6.37-1.src.tar.gz. Why am I receiving this error? Thanks. andrewthomas
Re: [aur-general] deletion request
On 06.02.2011 07:23, KESHAV P.R. wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:51, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: >> On 06.02.2011 07:19, KESHAV P.R. wrote: >>> Can someone please delete efibootmgr >>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into >>> 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ >>> by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. >>> >>> - Keshav >> I destroyed it with awesome power. >> >> -- Sven-Hendrik >> > Haha, that was damn fast. Thanks. > > - Keshav Yes, for this is Arch. -- Sven-Hendrk
Re: [aur-general] deletion request
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:51, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > On 06.02.2011 07:19, KESHAV P.R. wrote: >> Can someone please delete efibootmgr >> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into >> 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ >> by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. >> >> - Keshav > I destroyed it with awesome power. > > -- Sven-Hendrik > Haha, that was damn fast. Thanks. - Keshav
Re: [aur-general] deletion request
On 06.02.2011 07:19, KESHAV P.R. wrote: > Can someone please delete efibootmgr > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into > 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ > by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. > > - Keshav I destroyed it with awesome power. -- Sven-Hendrik
[aur-general] deletion request
Can someone please delete efibootmgr http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11899 . It was moved into 'extra' repo http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/efibootmgr/ by tpowa about 2 days back. Thanks in advance. - Keshav
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I'll just add here that I used to use moving packages to [community] as a TU recruitment ground. If the package I wanted to move to [community] was obviously well maintained, I usually offered to sponsor the maintainer to be a TU when I let them know I was going to move their package. I think there are still a couple of TUs here that got brought on that way. Allan
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I always send the maintainer a 'thank you' afterwards telling them that I've moved their package to [community] and asking them if they have any specific advise about the package. My personal opinion is that it is not necessary to ask beforehand when moving a package simply because in my experience it can take quite a long time to receive a response for such matters. But I think that not giving any indication to the maintainer of an AUR package that you have moved it is rather rude and not conducive to the general idea of the community. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > I apologize for taking your package without emailing or notifiying you and > more I feel bad for not replying to your email. And now i am ashamed on the > mailing list, > > I won't forget to mail the next time I adopt packages and move them to > [community]. > Let me just point out that in this case the Gmail Labs feature 'Canned Responses' is incredibly useful. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I have contributed a few PKGBUILDs to AUR. I do it because I enjoy it -- all I ask is for is recognition. Yes, this is an open source project and it is implicit that the work can and (hopefully) be adopted and improved. But recognition of each person who contributed should be maintained. I am not a lawyer and I generally tune out all license flame wars. That said, PKGBUILDS generally do not contain copyright or license declarations. Unless I am mistaken, that means someone who comes into possession of a PKGBUILD does not have the right to republish it. As a minimum, I think Arch should get a nod from the creator of a PKGBUILD prior to absorbing it into the colective -- It might help avoid any misunderstandings. Oh, and I would be honored to have one of my PKGBUILDs graduate to a more general release. Eric Waller
Re: [aur-general] Introduce kernel26-tools
Hi, On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Seblu wrote: > Dear Arch Users/Dev/TUs, > > I read some times ago on this mailing list words about shortly > introducing new cool packages. I'm starting. > > It is indeed a great idea. >From some times now, I discovered the power of a kernel embeded tools > named perf, which is really useful to get information about your > kernel performances and hunt performances issues. > Something really awesome is to see perf of a guest kvm kernel inside > the host kvm. > > Great tool to know. May come handy. Thanks -- Cédric Girard
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 06:01, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > I don't think that Hilton was trolling you Maxime, just poking a little fun > at Jelle. He was so engrossed with moving a package (think about the excitement he must have had) that he forgot about the formalities involved.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 03:35, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > I moved a lot of packages from AUR in community/extra and every time i did > sent a "thank you" note. From that amount of messages i sent, only once i > got a reply. ONCE. > > Should i be dissapointed? I guess yes. I am? No. No need. The first comment from you about moving already counts as closure. What I do is allow for a grace period before (1) uploading the package to repo and (2) deleting the package from AUR. I notify (via comments) at least a day before uploading, and delete the package a day after uploading. So that's a three-day process. Now, I just remembered a good example where we appear to have not bothered with adopting a package into the repositories: q7z [1] But really, the AUR maintainer can keep working on the PKGBUILD even if someone brings it in. The difference is you don't submit the PKGBUILD - you send an e-mail with it attached. And while we like to joke about making Arch greater and/or kicking butts, there isn't really anything of that sort. We just help each other out to fulfill our needs, and the distribution grows along with us. Humbly. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12822
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi Angel, > This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those > "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many > of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why > people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs > containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. I feared the "authorship" word may get too much of attention. Its a sad result of ugly missuse of todays. The authorship I meant -- and sorry for not making myself clear the first time -- is a relation of one who creates to the thing created, or of all who create that is too. No licence fees, nor revenues, nor copyright needed, nor asked for. Just simple A (+ B) created this PKGBUILD/package -- the difference now is unimportant. > As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of > whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD > but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we > are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that > your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too > (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). I also think that keeping the contributor tag is right. And I also am happy when my PKGBUILD gets promoted to repo. Though I'd be happier if I heard from the TU first (than finding out some day accidentaly that the PKGBUILD is not in the AUR anymore but now in the [community] as mentioned somewhere here). It is not as much of my own happiness -- though it motivates one if he hears it from the TU not just finds out accidentaly -- as also of bothsides politeness. > We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > will move your package, Now with this I would be maximaly fine. > but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` I guess I see your point. This is too strong. Though there should be some kind of inner `I have to ask him` comming from one's human politenes. Like `I want to move foo to community, is it ok with you? By the way good job maintaining it.` Most of the time the answer would be `yes` of course, but this motivates one to contribute. And sometimes one would answer `I am planning to become TU soon and would like to maintain this, so would you wait with the adoption till my becoming TU is resolved?` Now that does motivate too, doesn't it? > <--- THIS IS > MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > "please pay me" .. so hell no. For myself I contribute to Arch because I feel in a way obliged to, as it is a great distro which gave me much. So I hope stuff I put into AUR makes Arch better and help others. I want no money for it, just polite human comunication of what is going on. By the way, thanx for baring with me, Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Maxime Wack wrote: > Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Hilton Medeiros a écrit : > > > >> Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty >> thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! >> >> From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. >> >> > Wow, I didn't expect to be trolled on aur-general… > Let's just shorten everything to one question : what is a community > without communication ? > > I don't think that Hilton was trolling you Maxime, just poking a little fun at Jelle.
Re: [aur-general] Orphan request: gnome-paint
On 02/05/2011 11:49 PM, György Balló wrote: Please orphan gnome-paint package [1], because it's outdated for a while, and my e-mail to the maintainer was rejected (the address is not exists). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32487 -- City-busz done -- Ionuț
[aur-general] Orphan request: gnome-paint
Please orphan gnome-paint package [1], because it's outdated for a while, and my e-mail to the maintainer was rejected (the address is not exists). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32487 -- City-busz
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Hilton Medeiros a écrit : Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. Wow, I didn't expect to be trolled on aur-general… Let's just shorten everything to one question : what is a community without communication ?
Re: [aur-general] Request removal: pngout-static-athlon, pngout-static-pentium4
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 23:31:55 +0200 Evangelos Foutras wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Lou wrote: > > I just adopted and updated pngout-static, but there are some > > additional pngout-static packages available that are old, outdated, > > and orphaned. Nobody cares about these and nothing depends on them > > either. > > > > pngout-static-athlon > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38727 > > > > pngout-static-pentium4 > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38728 > > Deleted, thanks. Thanks for deleting these.
[aur-general] Introduce kernel26-tools
Dear Arch Users/Dev/TUs, I read some times ago on this mailing list words about shortly introducing new cool packages. I'm starting. >From some times now, I discovered the power of a kernel embeded tools named perf, which is really useful to get information about your kernel performances and hunt performances issues. Something really awesome is to see perf of a guest kvm kernel inside the host kvm. Famous mode you can test are: perf top perf bench perf record perf kvm A link :https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Perf_tools I push a PKGBUILD into AUR to easily install this tool from kernel sources: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46188. Name of the package come from debian (http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/linux-tools-2.6.32) Regards, -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
Re: [aur-general] Request removal: pngout-static-athlon, pngout-static-pentium4
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Lou wrote: > I just adopted and updated pngout-static, but there are some additional > pngout-static packages available that are old, outdated, and orphaned. > Nobody cares about these and nothing depends on them either. > > pngout-static-athlon > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38727 > > pngout-static-pentium4 > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38728 Deleted, thanks.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : > 2011/2/6 Ángel Velásquez : >> 2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the >>> process feels a little uneasy to me. >> >> First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some >> maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like >> this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you >> contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. > > There are way too many comments to reply them all, but I do want to > take an exception on this one. > > When I say "my", that is "packages that I have been maintaining". I'm > not "owning" them, of course. There's a sense they do "belong" to > someone: you don't delete or orphan a package on anyone's request > until they made sufficient effort to contact the maintainer and fix > any issues. The original issue I wanted to bring up: if delete/orphan > needs some form of cooperation, then why moving does not? > >>> My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of >>> packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so >>> many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that >>> yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, >>> as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing >>> what I've read before). >> >> Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in >> sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install >> (PKGBUILD) experimental software. >> >>> >>> If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that >>> popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking >>> the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, >>> except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now >>> bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I >>> wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, >>> object to unilateral decisions. >>> >>> My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer >>> first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package >>> then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been >>> doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. >> >> Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the >> project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official >> repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were >> packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not >> experimental at all. > > I beg your pardon, but I don't think this is at all about what is > "good" for me (and by "me" I mean maintainers). If it was really about > the good of the maintainer, then instead of just moving, the TUs and > Devs would offer continued maintaining rights in Community for the - > apparently successful - care taker. I know that this is technically > not feasible at the moment. I believe, though, that it would be the > The Right Thing (and saying this as part of that "Arch Linux > Community", whose good you want to above all), but that's for another > time, I'm not pushing that agenda here at all. > >> I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, >> well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be >> more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said >> anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a >> package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this >> is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you >> contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but >> that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. >> >> Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now >> you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. >> > > I'm sorry again, but you don't seem to get it: I don't want anything > more in return than what you expect from me -common courtesy. > > As for the comment that only very few people write back on the TUs > notes of moving: I didn't either. Why? It's all settled already, > what's there more to say? I don't think the number of replies have any > relation to the number of people who cared. > > I'm very happy to contribute. I'm very happy to spend time fixing > packages. I'm always checking whether there are orphan packages to fix > up. I don't apply to be a TU because I never know how much time I have > and don't want to do a shabby job. But this does not mean we all > cannot work together. Everybody gets different thing from Arch, but > it's arguably a fact that what's good for me, good for you too, and > vice versa. > > Cheers, > Greg > Ok this way of explaining the things is kinda different, the first one sounded too harsh and asking for courtesy being harsh is paradogic. IMHO , you are always up to write to th
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:00:32 +0100 Maxime Wack wrote: > I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I > was maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got > aware of this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the > same as in the repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my > package on AUR anymore. Not that I particularly care about that > package, or that I didn't want it to be in [Community], in fact it's > for the best, less work for me ! But what I didn't like was that it > was done without any comment or notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm > absolutely not implying that it was MY precious package and that it > felt like stealing, or that he had to wait for my approval. It's just > that talking about a community-driven repository, the least you could > expect from any user (and even more from a *trusted* user) would be > to communicate about what he's doing, so that everything goes clear, > acknowledged and understood. After discovering this, I emailed Jelle > van der Waa (who adopted the package), on 01/21, writing : > > >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. > >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be > >assured > that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have > been nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication > practice. > > > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " > > And I didn't get any answer… Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. -- Cheers, Hilton
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Nicky726 : > > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, but > more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the author by > a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless machines nor animals. > Hi Nicky, This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be "please pay me" .. so hell no. EOF -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/6 Ángel Velásquez : > 2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : >> Hi, >> >> Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the >> process feels a little uneasy to me. > > First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some > maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like > this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you > contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. There are way too many comments to reply them all, but I do want to take an exception on this one. When I say "my", that is "packages that I have been maintaining". I'm not "owning" them, of course. There's a sense they do "belong" to someone: you don't delete or orphan a package on anyone's request until they made sufficient effort to contact the maintainer and fix any issues. The original issue I wanted to bring up: if delete/orphan needs some form of cooperation, then why moving does not? >> My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of >> packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so >> many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that >> yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, >> as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing >> what I've read before). > > Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in > sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install > (PKGBUILD) experimental software. > >> >> If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that >> popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking >> the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, >> except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now >> bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I >> wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, >> object to unilateral decisions. >> >> My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer >> first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package >> then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been >> doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the > project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official > repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were > packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not > experimental at all. I beg your pardon, but I don't think this is at all about what is "good" for me (and by "me" I mean maintainers). If it was really about the good of the maintainer, then instead of just moving, the TUs and Devs would offer continued maintaining rights in Community for the - apparently successful - care taker. I know that this is technically not feasible at the moment. I believe, though, that it would be the The Right Thing (and saying this as part of that "Arch Linux Community", whose good you want to above all), but that's for another time, I'm not pushing that agenda here at all. > I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, > well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be > more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said > anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a > package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this > is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you > contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but > that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. > > Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now > you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. > I'm sorry again, but you don't seem to get it: I don't want anything more in return than what you expect from me -common courtesy. As for the comment that only very few people write back on the TUs notes of moving: I didn't either. Why? It's all settled already, what's there more to say? I don't think the number of replies have any relation to the number of people who cared. I'm very happy to contribute. I'm very happy to spend time fixing packages. I'm always checking whether there are orphan packages to fix up. I don't apply to be a TU because I never know how much time I have and don't want to do a shabby job. But this does not mean we all cannot work together. Everybody gets different thing from Arch, but it's arguably a fact that what's good for me, good for you too, and vice versa. Cheers, Greg
[aur-general] Request removal: pngout-static-athlon, pngout-static-pentium4
I just adopted and updated pngout-static, but there are some additional pngout-static packages available that are old, outdated, and orphaned. Nobody cares about these and nothing depends on them either. pngout-static-athlon http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38727 pngout-static-pentium4 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38728
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). It is "second class" in that anybody can upload packages to it. That includes both incompetent and malicious packagers. All AUR users should be aware of the inherent dangers of using the AUR and that is at least part of the reason that no AUR helpers are allowed in the official repos. That does not mean that the AUR is a package cesspool. Many if not most packages on the AUR are indeed very good, but it does not receive the same scrutiny that the official repos receive. > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Cheers, >Greg Some of the replies so far show clear territoriality. AUR maintainers feel that packages belong to them, and TUs feel that PKGBUILDs belong to Arch and thus the TUs can do whatever they want because they are part of Arch. It is true that all contributions to the AUR are contributions to Arch. AUR maintainers do not "own" their packages and if the community as a whole is best served by moving those packages then that is what should be done. TUs do not need to ask permission before orphaning or deleting a package, so adopting or moving a package should be no different. However, more should be taken into consideration than just official permissions. I fully understand Greg's sentiment and I have argued for contacting maintainers before when this issue has arisen. Just because a TU is within his rights to move the package without contacting the maintainer, it doesn't mean he should. The attitude expressed by some of the TUs in reply to this shows a fundamental lack of appreciation for community spirit. Arch benefits immeasurably from such contributions, and being rude to contributors is not in the best interest of the project. Sending a message or leaving a comment is neither difficult nor time consuming. Effectively telling AUR maintainers "stfu, you should be honored, plus you don't own it anyway" is not the way I think TUs should deal with AUR maintainers. We all do the same thing. The only difference is that TUs have some official label stamped on them that gives them access to [community]. I suspect that most TUs would expect to be informed of changes made to packages that they maintain, so why should AUR maintainers be any different? It might be within your rights to be rude, but you are not helping Arch in the long run by doing so. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Le 5 février 2011 13:45:20, Thomas S Hatch a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > > what I've read before). > > > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > > object to unilateral decisions. > > > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Greg > > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > the blood on the knife's edge. > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki > entry. > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > march to making Arch greater. > > -Thomas S Hatch > -Arch Linux Trusted User It is important to recognize the work done by the AUR contributor. Also we should not forget that TUs and Jr Devs are frequently selected among them. I can give a personal example. I was contacted by Thomas Dziedzic some weeks after being accepted as a Jr dev. He asked me if he could add the openmpi package into [community]. My nomination was not well known at that time. This mail gives me the possibility to tell him that I wanted to continue to maintain it and that I planned to add it to [community] later. I maintain it in [community] now. I really appreciated that he asked me instead of just taking the package. Stéphane
Re: [aur-general] deletion request: dino-git
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from masutu's message of 2011-02-04 18:22:35 +0100: > > Hi TUs, > > > > can you please delete dino-git ( > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33598)? I'm the maintainer of > this > > package and want it to be deleted because > > a) PKGBUILD is broken, outdated and i can't get current git versions to > > compile (neither master branch nor Branch_0_2) > > b) dino is not very popular, dino has 3 votes, dino-git 0 votes, so i > think, > > we can live without the git package > > > > masutu > > Popularity or the lack of it is no reason for deletion from AUR, IMHO. > Community is for the popular packages. If it doesn't build orphaning the > package is the way to go IMHO, someone else can take it over, take > what's there already or start from scratch. > > This was not a question of popularity, masutu was just being awesome and covering his bases. masutu asked for the packages to be deleted because he was the maintainer and no longer felt that the package was needed, as the maintainer he holds that prerogative. But yes, a lack of popularity is not grounds alone for package removal
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > >> > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the > >> maintainer > >> > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I > >> also > >> > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > >> > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch > development, > >> > the blood on the knife's edge. > >> > > >> > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost > respect > >> and > >> > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > >> > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this > >> wiki > >> > entry. > >> > > >> > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors > the > >> > utmost respect, they deserve it. > >> > > >> > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will > allow > >> us > >> > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > >> march > >> > to making Arch greater. > >> > >> I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and > >> waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge > >> problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos > >> shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the > >> community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package > >> has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a > >> place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains > >> the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. > >> > >> Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And > >> another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about > >> a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the > >> appropriate place for this. > >> > > > > > > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to > open > > source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of > > receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could > > have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch > > reserves rights to. > > > > But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the > > package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before > > moving the package to community I still think that it is important to > > recognize the maintainer who paved the road. > > > > I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the > AUR > > maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should > develop > > and maintain an atmosphere of respect. > > > > To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting > > AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw > > the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be > > mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged > > courtesy. > > > > -Thomas S Hatch > > > > I agree. Even if the packages are part of archlinux, the courteous > thing to do would be to send an email before moving the packages to > see if the original maintainer is onboard with it. Though he may not > own it, he does have a sense of authorship, and that needs to be taken > into account. We're still dealing with people here :) > > -Thomas > I want to make sure that no one gets me wrong, I agree with Angel, and I feel strongly that the technical progress of Arch Linux should in no way be hampered by political or social barriers. But often the best way to avoid making political and social barriers is through respect and courtesy. As far as I know, the TUs make an effort to show this courtesy and respect. If an AUR contributor does not feel that they have been treated fairly, then they should email the TU that adopted the package and KINDLY (we get emails from crazy people sometimes, and those usually get ignored) let them know that a notification would have been nice, and ask for the courtesy next time. We want to be kind and respectful, but we also want Arch to kick more butt, and to be quite honest, we TUs probably all care more about Arch kicking butt, than we care about your feelings. With that said, I think that it is most likely that contributors care much more about Arch kicking butt than they do about their own feelings. We all make mistakes, but as a whole we can put the mistakes aside and work on the overall betterment of Linux, open source and freedom, isn't that what this is all about? -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 21:00 +0100, Maxime Wack wrote: > I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I was > maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got aware of > this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the same as in the > repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my package on AUR anymore. > Not that I particularly care about that package, or that I didn't want > it to be in [Community], in fact it's for the best, less work for me ! > But what I didn't like was that it was done without any comment or > notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not implying that it was MY > precious package and that it felt like stealing, or that he had to wait > for my approval. It's just that talking about a community-driven > repository, the least you could expect from any user (and even more from > a *trusted* user) would be to communicate about what he's doing, so that > everything goes clear, acknowledged and understood. > After discovering this, I emailed Jelle van der Waa (who adopted the > package), on 01/21, writing : > > >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. > >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be assured > that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have been > nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication practice. > > > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " > > And I didn't get any answer… I apologize for taking your package without emailing or notifiying you and more I feel bad for not replying to your email. And now i am ashamed on the mailing list, I won't forget to mail the next time I adopt packages and move them to [community]. -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] deletion request: dino-git
Excerpts from masutu's message of 2011-02-04 18:22:35 +0100: > Hi TUs, > > can you please delete dino-git ( > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33598)? I'm the maintainer of this > package and want it to be deleted because > a) PKGBUILD is broken, outdated and i can't get current git versions to > compile (neither master branch nor Branch_0_2) > b) dino is not very popular, dino has 3 votes, dino-git 0 votes, so i think, > we can live without the git package > > masutu Popularity or the lack of it is no reason for deletion from AUR, IMHO. Community is for the popular packages. If it doesn't build orphaning the package is the way to go IMHO, someone else can take it over, take what's there already or start from scratch.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 02:31, Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. This has come up a couple of times before, and we all know it is very wrong to move a package from [unsupported] _without prior notice_. We have since been reminding each other, but it looks like the word hasn't reached some of us. Perhaps it is time to put this in the guidelines? We cannot just assume that everyone would be in the know, although I expect that the individuals we (s)elect to take care of the AUR have at least this much understanding. But I don't think that's the main issue here, which brings me to: > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Now, this is something I find very strange. I wish I had the previous discussions to link to, so you could better understand what I am about to mention. You have to understand that the AUR started out with a purpose, a purpose which has not, and will not for the foreseeable future, change. It serves as a platform for proposing packages for redistribution, and not a platform for competition. Imagine: * Jane needs package foobar * Jane cannot find package foobar in the repositories * Jane creates package foobar for her own use * Jane now wants to share package foobar so this cycle does not repeat When you upload a PKGBUILD, you are _sharing_ that PKGBUILD. If a Trusted User wants to adopt it, that's a good thing for the community. You don't have to feel challenged, because we are all users, one and the same, TU or not. You can continue providing assistance if you see the need, by communicating with the TU. When I myself started out contributing PKGBUILDs to [unsupported], I did it hoping one day they will receive enough votes and be adopted by a TU, enabling the packages to be redistributed to the masses in binary form, easily accessible with the package manager. I believe this is the true spirit, the Arch Spirit. Of course, it is not wrong to want to keep maintaining a package yourself. It just does not make sense to me. If you really have a problem, report the packages affected and we can drop them for you.
[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I was maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got aware of this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the same as in the repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my package on AUR anymore. Not that I particularly care about that package, or that I didn't want it to be in [Community], in fact it's for the best, less work for me ! But what I didn't like was that it was done without any comment or notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not implying that it was MY precious package and that it felt like stealing, or that he had to wait for my approval. It's just that talking about a community-driven repository, the least you could expect from any user (and even more from a *trusted* user) would be to communicate about what he's doing, so that everything goes clear, acknowledged and understood. After discovering this, I emailed Jelle van der Waa (who adopted the package), on 01/21, writing : >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be assured that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have been nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication practice. > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " And I didn't get any answer…
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer > wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: >> > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the >> maintainer >> > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I >> also >> > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who >> > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, >> > the blood on the knife's edge. >> > >> > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect >> and >> > appreciation. I would also like to point out: >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification >> > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this >> wiki >> > entry. >> > >> > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the >> > utmost respect, they deserve it. >> > >> > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow >> us >> > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our >> march >> > to making Arch greater. >> >> I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and >> waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge >> problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos >> shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the >> community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package >> has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a >> place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains >> the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. >> >> Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And >> another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about >> a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the >> appropriate place for this. >> > > > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to open > source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of > receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could > have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch > reserves rights to. > > But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the > package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before > moving the package to community I still think that it is important to > recognize the maintainer who paved the road. > > I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the AUR > maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should develop > and maintain an atmosphere of respect. > > To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting > AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw > the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be > mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged > courtesy. > > -Thomas S Hatch > I agree. Even if the packages are part of archlinux, the courteous thing to do would be to send an email before moving the packages to see if the original maintainer is onboard with it. Though he may not own it, he does have a sense of authorship, and that needs to be taken into account. We're still dealing with people here :) -Thomas
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi, fellow Archers, I feel a need to express my support to the opinion stated by Greg Imreh and Thomas Hatch. There is an unique relation between the contributor/maintainer and the PKGBUILD. This relation calls for respect. So please TUs/devs act as people and show it by letting first the contributor/maintainer know, that you are about to adopt a PKGBUILD to the binary repo. Surely adoption in the repo by itself is greater good for the package and Arch and therefor goal of every maintainer, so there hardly will be objections from the maintainer, but just taking it without a word is very rude. There would be no package to adopt, if there was not for the AUR contributor/maintainer. To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless machines nor animals. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
It would be technologically helpful if moving a package to Community (or just deleting it from the AUR) did not consign its AUR comments to the eternal bit bucket in the sky. At any rate, I often wish I could see what was on the AUR page just before it was moved. ((if you want an example:: One of my AUR packages had some commentary I was planning on thinking about more. Then it was (unexpectedly to me) moved to [community]. I couldn't see the conversation or check which was the last PKGBUILD version I'd uploaded. In this case I wanted to do so because there was some more work I'd been planning on doing on the PKGBUILD, as its maintainer; I wanted to helpfully see if the new TU maintainer had made similar improvements already, or if there was something left that I could suggest.)) -Isaac
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 02/05/2011 08:31 PM, Gergely Imreh wrote: Hi, Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the process feels a little uneasy to me. I moved a lot of packages from AUR in community/extra and every time i did sent a "thank you" note. From that amount of messages i sent, only once i got a reply. ONCE. Should i be dissapointed? I guess yes. I am? No. My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. that is the perfect world but we don't live in such world. At least your name remains as contributor for that build. -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 10:32 +0100, Jakob Gruber wrote: > On 02/05/2011 10:08 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: > > So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is > > available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. > > > > That fix you mentioned is already applied in the current package. > I tried a couple of different patches a few days ago. The only thing > that "helped" was to build the latest svn version, > with which epdfview still segfaults, but only while closing and not > while opening the application. > > I've emailed the author on Thursday (couldn't find a way to open a > ticket on their trac site) but haven't received a reply yet though. > > I'm kind of at a loss about what to do next. Right now, my only backup > plan is to update to the current svn revision (which, looking at the > commits since release 2 years ago, seems rather stable). > > By the way, evince also segfaults on application close with affected > pdfs for me, poppler bug? I have seen evince segfault too on closing, what how does it affect your pdf's? -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the > maintainer > > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I > also > > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > > the blood on the knife's edge. > > > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect > and > > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this > wiki > > entry. > > > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow > us > > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > march > > to making Arch greater. > > I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and > waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge > problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos > shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the > community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package > has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a > place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains > the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. > > Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And > another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about > a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the > appropriate place for this. > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to open source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch reserves rights to. But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before moving the package to community I still think that it is important to recognize the maintainer who paved the road. I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the AUR maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should develop and maintain an atmosphere of respect. To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged courtesy. -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > the blood on the knife's edge. > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki > entry. > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our march > to making Arch greater. I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the appropriate place for this.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install (PKGBUILD) experimental software. > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not experimental at all. I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. > > Cheers, > Greg > -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Cheers, > Greg > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, the blood on the knife's edge. We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and appreciation. I would also like to point out: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki entry. I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the utmost respect, they deserve it. A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our march to making Arch greater. -Thomas S Hatch -Arch Linux Trusted User
[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi, Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the process feels a little uneasy to me. My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing what I've read before). If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, object to unilateral decisions. My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Cheers, Greg
Re: [aur-general] [community], [unsupported] and AUR
On Thursday 03 February 2011 05:39:52 Heiko Baums wrote: > Every binary repo is called something in square brackets like [core], > [extra], [community] etc., which are activated or deactivated > in /etc/pacman.conf, but there is no repo [unsupported]. And at least I > haven't found any reference on the AUR homepage to the term > [unsupported]. From the user's point of view there is only AUR. > > So I guess at least for new users it should be made clear somewhere in > the wiki and/or on the AUR homepage that AUR and [unsupported] are the > same. Or the term [unsupported] or at least the square brackets around > unsupported should be dropped completely. +1 from me. The term [unsupported] makes it look like there's a repo called that, which there isn't. The AUR and [community] are quite separate concepts these days, if you ask me, and even though they're managed by the same group of people, this isn't at all obvious from a user perspective. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] 2 packages for Lyx 2.0
I agree. Did you try to contact both of them, or leave a message on the AUR ? On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: > I mean, if they provide the same thing, there should be just one. Right? > > 2011/2/3 Bernardo Barros : > > Lyx beta3 has two packages in AUR: > > > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37964 > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45798 > > > > no idea which did it better. :-) > > >
Re: [aur-general] 2 packages for Lyx 2.0
I mean, if they provide the same thing, there should be just one. Right? 2011/2/3 Bernardo Barros : > Lyx beta3 has two packages in AUR: > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37964 > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45798 > > no idea which did it better. :-) >
Re: [aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
On 02/05/2011 02:50 PM, Jakob Gruber wrote: On 02/05/2011 10:32 AM, Jakob Gruber wrote: On 02/05/2011 10:08 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. That fix you mentioned is already applied in the current package. I tried a couple of different patches a few days ago. The only thing that "helped" was to build the latest svn version, with which epdfview still segfaults, but only while closing and not while opening the application. I've emailed the author on Thursday (couldn't find a way to open a ticket on their trac site) but haven't received a reply yet though. I'm kind of at a loss about what to do next. Right now, my only backup plan is to update to the current svn revision (which, looking at the commits since release 2 years ago, seems rather stable). By the way, evince also segfaults on application close with affected pdfs for me, poppler bug? This is now fixed to the point that it will only segfault on close, similar to evince. maybe we should report to poppler. it might be a bug in there -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
On 02/05/2011 10:32 AM, Jakob Gruber wrote: On 02/05/2011 10:08 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. That fix you mentioned is already applied in the current package. I tried a couple of different patches a few days ago. The only thing that "helped" was to build the latest svn version, with which epdfview still segfaults, but only while closing and not while opening the application. I've emailed the author on Thursday (couldn't find a way to open a ticket on their trac site) but haven't received a reply yet though. I'm kind of at a loss about what to do next. Right now, my only backup plan is to update to the current svn revision (which, looking at the commits since release 2 years ago, seems rather stable). By the way, evince also segfaults on application close with affected pdfs for me, poppler bug? This is now fixed to the point that it will only segfault on close, similar to evince.
Re: [aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
On 02/05/2011 10:08 AM, Andreas Radke wrote: So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. That fix you mentioned is already applied in the current package. I tried a couple of different patches a few days ago. The only thing that "helped" was to build the latest svn version, with which epdfview still segfaults, but only while closing and not while opening the application. I've emailed the author on Thursday (couldn't find a way to open a ticket on their trac site) but haven't received a reply yet though. I'm kind of at a loss about what to do next. Right now, my only backup plan is to update to the current svn revision (which, looking at the commits since release 2 years ago, seems rather stable). By the way, evince also segfaults on application close with affected pdfs for me, poppler bug?
[aur-general] poppler rebuilds will soon move - one buggy pkg in Community
Just a small note that we will move poppler rebuilds right after the MySQL move. So far I only know of one broken pkg in community where a fix is available: epdfview - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22734. Can somebody with community access test it and fix the bug? -Andy
