[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 * 1 fully signed off package * 14 packages missing signoffs * 3 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] (12 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any) 0/2 signoffs * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * bfgminer-5.0.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * dart-1.8-1 (x86_64) 1/2 signoffs * gdal-1.11.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-h5py-2.3.1-3 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-pytables-3.1.1-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * vtk-6.1.0-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) == * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Completed signoffs (1 total) == * dart-1.8-1 (i686) == All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) == * freevo-1.9.0-14 (any), since 2014-08-27 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (i686), since 2014-09-29 * packagekit-qt-0.9.2-2 (x86_64), since 2014-09-29 == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. arodseth - 4 signoffs 2. bpiotrowski - 2 signoffs
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
On 02-12-14 07:07, Nowaker wrote: A custom field in PKGBUILD that AUR will understand would really come in handy. Something like this: pkgissues='https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues' p input type=submit value=Add Comment nbsp;nbsp; If you can't build the package, or the package is broken, please a href=https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues;report an issue/a instead. /p Not a bad idea, but it would require makepkg to support it. Official repos have bug reports / add a new bug links on the package page, so they don't need this option. How about a similar field on AUR package page ? it should be empty by default, editable for maintainer
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:43:05 +0100 LoneVVolf lonew...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 02-12-14 07:07, Nowaker wrote: A custom field in PKGBUILD that AUR will understand would really come in handy. Something like this: pkgissues='https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues' p input type=submit value=Add Comment nbsp;nbsp; If you can't build the package, or the package is broken, please a href=https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues;report an issue/a instead. /p Not a bad idea, but it would require makepkg to support it. Official repos have bug reports / add a new bug links on the package page, so they don't need this option. How about a similar field on AUR package page ? it should be empty by default, editable for maintainer I for one would really like to see a field on the AUR where I as buildscript maintainer can enter comments regarding the package, like X is broken right now, for y use workaround z, etc. -- Joakim
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joakim Hernberg jhernb...@alchemy.lu wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 11:43:05 +0100 LoneVVolf lonew...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 02-12-14 07:07, Nowaker wrote: A custom field in PKGBUILD that AUR will understand would really come in handy. Something like this: pkgissues='https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues' p input type=submit value=Add Comment nbsp;nbsp; If you can't build the package, or the package is broken, please a href=https://github.com/Nowaker/aur-packages/issues;report an issue/a instead. /p Not a bad idea, but it would require makepkg to support it. Official repos have bug reports / add a new bug links on the package page, so they don't need this option. How about a similar field on AUR package page ? it should be empty by default, editable for maintainer I for one would really like to see a field on the AUR where I as buildscript maintainer can enter comments regarding the package, like X is broken right now, for y use workaround z, etc. -- Joakim You can start a thread on the forums.
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
Comments have a timestamp. You can, after all, just compare the comment date with the package's upload date. And then again. We could actually have comments more recent than the last source package upload have a wee bit stronger contrast and maybe *bold* font. cheers! mar77i
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
I think that a bug tracker would be the best solution, and i see removing comments just as a temporary, hacky solution. as comments are just used for bug tracking anyway. (so we can just replace the comments block below the AUR package with the bug tracker) But if we change it, it should be build like github to be tightly integrated with an underlying VCS to which the AUR package publisher and the AUR trusted users have commit rights.
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Joakim Hernberg jhernb...@alchemy.lu wrote: I for one would really like to see a field on the AUR where I as buildscript maintainer can enter comments regarding the package, like X is broken right now, for y use workaround z, etc. ...along with this, the AUR pages should parse 'changelog=' and display the changelog as provided by the packager. The feature is already there, all we need is the website to parse display. $0.02, -te
Re: [aur-general] Should we recommend removing comments from the AUR?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:11:01 +0100 mrlemux mrle...@gmail.com wrote: comments are just used for bug tracking anyway No, they provide useful information, at least for those of us who are using the frowned upon yaourt. If I run 'yaourt -S' I like to see the comments, because then I don't need to check a bugtracker or even the AUR website first, to see if a PKGBUILD might be broken and what workarounds already were done by others.
