[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 0 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 8 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (8 total) == * acpi_call-lts-1.1.0-6 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * r8168-lts-8.038.00-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * tp_smapi-lts-0.41-28 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-lts-4.3.12-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * acpi_call-lts-1.1.0-6 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * r8168-lts-8.038.00-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * tp_smapi-lts-0.41-28 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * virtualbox-modules-lts-4.3.12-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 9 signoffs
[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
Hello, I am pleased to announce that AUR 3.3.0 has just been released. The official AUR setup [1] has already been updated. This release includes several improvements to the package request feature and a couple of bug fixes. For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [2]. As usual, bugs should be reported to the AUR bug tracker [3]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/ [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/log/?id=v3.3.0 [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2
Re: [aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
Does anyone else think there is now just one thing missing from the request feature (or a different link)? I keep thinking this package is broken or this package needs attention (for reasons other than being out of date or abandoned), and there isn't a suitable button! Yes, the maintainer *should* be watching the comments, but that's very often not the case. Currently, I think my only choices are: 1. Flag as to be orphaned (even though I know the maintainer is still active) 2. Flag as out of date (even though it isn't) Examples might include: VCS packages that no longer build properly; or PKGBUILDs that do something unintentional (copy a file to the wrong directory, etc); or packages that don't build anymore because of a changed dependency. Just wondered if those would be considered reasons for flagging as out of date, or if anyone agrees this would be useful to have? Thanks, Steven. On 5 July 2014 14:23, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Hello, I am pleased to announce that AUR 3.3.0 has just been released. The official AUR setup [1] has already been updated. This release includes several improvements to the package request feature and a couple of bug fixes. For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [2]. As usual, bugs should be reported to the AUR bug tracker [3]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/ [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/log/?id=v3.3.0 [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2
Re: [aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 18:29 +0100, Steven Honeyman wrote: Does anyone else think there is now just one thing missing from the request feature (or a different link)? I keep thinking this package is broken or this package needs attention (for reasons other than being out of date or abandoned), and there isn't a suitable button! Yes, the maintainer *should* be watching the comments, but that's very often not the case. Currently, I think my only choices are: 1. Flag as to be orphaned (even though I know the maintainer is still active) 2. Flag as out of date (even though it isn't) Examples might include: VCS packages that no longer build properly; or PKGBUILDs that do something unintentional (copy a file to the wrong directory, etc); or packages that don't build anymore because of a changed dependency. Just wondered if those would be considered reasons for flagging as out of date, or if anyone agrees this would be useful to have? How about adding a needs attention checkbox when submitting a comment that, when checked, would email the maintainer and raise an attention requested flag on the package display page? The maintainer could check an AR reset checkbox when submitting his/her own comment, which would clear the flag. Carl On 5 July 2014 14:23, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Hello, I am pleased to announce that AUR 3.3.0 has just been released. The official AUR setup [1] has already been updated. This release includes several improvements to the package request feature and a couple of bug fixes. For a comprehensive list of changes, please consult the Git log [2]. As usual, bugs should be reported to the AUR bug tracker [3]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/ [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/log/?id=v3.3.0 [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2
Re: [aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
Carl Schaefer wrote: How about adding a needs attention checkbox when submitting a comment that, when checked, would email the maintainer and raise an attention requested flag on the package display page? The maintainer could check an AR reset checkbox when submitting his/her own comment, which would clear the flag. Carl This is calling for abuse. Almost everybody will consider their problem to be worth of attention. Maintainers should be subscribed to be notified of comments in their packages. If they're not, then they're not doing their job properly and requesting orphaning is justified IMO.
Re: [aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released
Wouldn't this push more work towards the AUR maintainers though? What actually happens when someone requests a package is to be orphaned? Can the package maintainer un-request it by doing something? I guess I just assumed (like the ML previously) that a bunch of people would get an email with the request in it - which nobody really wants to see! Definitely agree on the comment+checkbox idea being a bad one. As you said, everyone's problem would demand attention. Steven. On 5 July 2014 19:39, A Rojas nqn1976l...@gmail.com wrote: Carl Schaefer wrote: How about adding a needs attention checkbox when submitting a comment that, when checked, would email the maintainer and raise an attention requested flag on the package display page? The maintainer could check an AR reset checkbox when submitting his/her own comment, which would clear the flag. Carl This is calling for abuse. Almost everybody will consider their problem to be worth of attention. Maintainers should be subscribed to be notified of comments in their packages. If they're not, then they're not doing their job properly and requesting orphaning is justified IMO.
