Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On 04/04/2018 01:05 PM, alrii via aur-general wrote:
> AUR is like the wild west. Anyone can upload any packages even if it is
> already exist.
They sure can, and we can delete the package -- and the user with it.
...
The dnscrypt-proxy-go-git is pretty obviously a duplicate of
dnscrypt-proxy-git. I've told the git maintainer to update with the
original, now rewritten upstream sources.
*This is now over and done with.*
The dnscrypt-proxy package is now updated, and I graciously left the
dnscrypt-proxy-go package available until now... because it started as
the golang beta which was something valid to have in the AUR, and I
wasn't sure I wanted to delete the existing package before it was
otherwise available. If it had been newly uploaded it would be deleted
in a heartbeat -- it would hardly be the first outdated package that was
uploaded to the AUR and deleted for breaking the rules.
(Why is the peanut gallery complaining about a deletion request that had
not even been accepted.)
*This too is now over and done with.*
Anyone who wants the 1.x version is welcome to create a
dnscrypt-proxy-legacy{,-git} package.
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On 2018-04-04 11:01:20 (-0500), Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > > Please be specific. We aren't talking about hours and bumping > > package version. Common sense can be used to know when taking > > action will make people worse-off. > > The package was managed so efficiently that even upstream benefited > > from it. Archlinux maintainer dosen't have to do anything else than > > copy-paste existing PKGBUILD. All work and testing is already done. > > > > Jordan > > I have been specific; the rules are in place for a reason, common sense says > that they're necessary. This case is not special. > > C&Ping the entire PKGBUILD would be a huge mistake. Those sed commands > are...marginal, to be generous. While being in line with what Doug wrote on the topic, I agree, that it took quite some time to upgrade, but behold! dnscrypt-proxy 2.0.8 is now in community-testing (btw: no, not just c/p) [1]. I do understand that a longer wait time can be frustrating for users, but it's no reason to get aggressive about it. The upstream situation was far from "easy going" IMHO, which was all the more reason to wait and see what would happen. A few (unpaid) hands are trying to keep up the shape of what Arch is. I have the feeling, that sometimes it is easily forgotten, that we are a community of like-minded (and from what I read, passionate) people. If you find a problem, go ahead and fix it (e.g. by applying to become a TU and engaging in the overall quality of the distribution), but please keep in mind, that we're all doing this in our free time. [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community-testing/x86_64/dnscrypt-proxy/ -- https://sleepmap.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
AUR is like the wild west. Anyone can upload any packages even if it is already exist. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:33 -0400 > Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: > > > On April 4, 2018 5:32 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400 > > > > > > Jordan Glover via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote: > > > > > > > I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER > update package > > > > > > > > in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where > killing other people > > > > > > > > efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an > alternative. Common > > > > > > > > sense should prevail the rules. > > > > > > > > Jordan > > > > > > Common sense tells me that if we allow people to upload newer packages > just > > > > > > because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even > bigger mess > > > > > > than it already is. Everyone will be uploading packages a few hours > after > > > > > > upstream releases updates, and of course they will just abandon them > instead of > > > > > > having them deleted. The rules are in place for a reason. > > > > > > Doug > > > > Please be specific. We aren't talking about hours and bumping package > version. > > Common sense can be used to know when taking action will make people > worse-off. > > The package was managed so efficiently that even upstream benefited from > it. > > Archlinux maintainer dosen't have to do anything else than copy-paste > existing > > PKGBUILD. All work and testing is already done. > > > > Jordan > > I have been specific; the rules are in place for a reason, common sense > says > that they're necessary. This case is not special. > > C&Ping the entire PKGBUILD would be a huge mistake. Those sed commands > are...marginal, to be generous. >
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:33 -0400 Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: > On April 4, 2018 5:32 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: > > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400 > > > > Jordan Glover via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote: > > > > > I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER update > > > package > > > > > > in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where killing > > > other people > > > > > > efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an > > > alternative. Common > > > > > > sense should prevail the rules. > > > > > > Jordan > > > > Common sense tells me that if we allow people to upload newer packages just > > > > because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even bigger mess > > > > than it already is. Everyone will be uploading packages a few hours after > > > > upstream releases updates, and of course they will just abandon them > > instead of > > > > having them deleted. The rules are in place for a reason. > > > > Doug > > Please be specific. We aren't talking about hours and bumping package version. > Common sense can be used to know when taking action will make people > worse-off. > The package was managed so efficiently that even upstream benefited from it. > Archlinux maintainer dosen't have to do anything else than copy-paste existing > PKGBUILD. All work and testing is already done. > > Jordan I have been specific; the rules are in place for a reason, common sense says that they're necessary. This case is not special. C&Ping the entire PKGBUILD would be a huge mistake. Those sed commands are...marginal, to be generous.
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On April 4, 2018 5:32 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400 > > Jordan Glover via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote: > > > I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER update > > package > > > > in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where killing > > other people > > > > efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an alternative. > > Common > > > > sense should prevail the rules. > > > > Jordan > > Common sense tells me that if we allow people to upload newer packages just > > because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even bigger mess > > than it already is. Everyone will be uploading packages a few hours after > > upstream releases updates, and of course they will just abandon them instead > of > > having them deleted. The rules are in place for a reason. > > Doug Please be specific. We aren't talking about hours and bumping package version. Common sense can be used to know when taking action will make people worse-off. The package was managed so efficiently that even upstream benefited from it. Archlinux maintainer dosen't have to do anything else than copy-paste existing PKGBUILD. All work and testing is already done. Jordan
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:23:34 -0400 Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: > I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER update > package > in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where killing > other people > efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an alternative. > Common > sense should prevail the rules. > > Jordan Common sense tells me that if we allow people to upload newer packages just because the repo package is out of date, the AUR will be an even bigger mess than it already is. Everyone will be uploading packages a few hours after upstream releases updates, and of course they will just abandon them instead of having them deleted. The rules are in place for a reason. Doug
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On April 4, 2018 4:49 PM, Robin Broda via aur-general wrote: > On 04/04/2018 04:37 PM, Jordan Glover wrote: > > > > The point is that the community package which doesn't build manually and > > > > point to nonexistent sources is the one which should be deleted instead of > > > > the one from AUR. If you prefer that upstream Archlinux instructions will > > look > > > > the same as those for Ubuntu/Debian[*] then it will be done but it would > > mean > > > > that Archlinux project in current form is a joke and you role in it isn't > > worth a > > > > dime. > > The package in [community] will be updated soon. > > > > > Jordan > > Regards, Rob I'm sorry for the harsh words. If those requests were made AFTER update package in repo there won't be this conversation. I found situation where killing other people efforts to make things work, unacceptable without providing an alternative. Common sense should prevail the rules. Jordan
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On 04/04/2018 04:37 PM, Jordan Glover wrote: > On April 4, 2018 3:44 PM, Robin Broda via aur-general > wrote: > >> On 04/04/2018 02:41 PM, Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: >> >>> Can we get more explanation for this? This isn't a version bump. This >>> project >>> >>> was rewritten from scratch, the old sources are gone. The PKGBUILD was >>> written >>> >>> from scratch, packagement solutions were upstreamed[1]. Upstream points >>> >>> specifically to this package[2]. Archlinux repo maintainer wasn't involved >>> at >>> >>> all with those and there is no info if he's interested in maintaining the >>> new >>> >>> v2 version. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/commit/fa2c95084ef9b575bfbe62543e0765623c9b8a0e >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-ArchLinux >>> >>> Jordan >> >> It's got the same name, is written by the same author, and the versions >> >> begin at 2.0.0. Fwiw this is just a major version bump of the same >> >> package - it doesn't really matter what percentage of it has changed >> >> since the last version. > > So when it doesn't share any code, doesn't share code repository and doesn't > use compatible configs it's still the same package ... This is a result of the poor deprecation path (read: none) dnscrypt-proxy v1 had, coupled with the poor handling of superseding it with v2 (deleting all traces to v1, developing v2 in the same namespace). That's just bad project management, and there's no reason to rename our community/dnscrypt-proxy when (the same) upstream calls itself dnscrypt-proxy v2 - it's, for all that matters, a major version bump with breaking changes and an awful deprecation path. > ... but when it shares the same > code, repository and configs and it's named securedns-proxy it will be totally > different. IMO, if this was a new program officially called securedns-proxy, on a different upstream URL, then yes - that'd be a new package. >> >> Yes, that means the package in [community] is out-of-date, and no, your >> >> involvement with upstream doesn't matter. > > I'm not the package owner. > >> >> Regards, Rob > > > The point is that the community package which doesn't build manually and > point to nonexistent sources is the one which should be deleted instead of > the one from AUR. If you prefer that upstream Archlinux instructions will look > the same as those for Ubuntu/Debian[*] then it will be done but it would mean > that Archlinux project in current form is a joke and you role in it isn't > worth a > dime. The package in [community] will be updated soon. > > [*] "Do not install the dnscrypt-proxy distribution package, as it is old, > and unsupported." > https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-Debian-Ubuntu > Jordan > Regards, Rob signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On April 4, 2018 3:44 PM, Robin Broda via aur-general wrote: > On 04/04/2018 02:41 PM, Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: > > > Can we get more explanation for this? This isn't a version bump. This > > project > > > > was rewritten from scratch, the old sources are gone. The PKGBUILD was > > written > > > > from scratch, packagement solutions were upstreamed[1]. Upstream points > > > > specifically to this package[2]. Archlinux repo maintainer wasn't involved > > at > > > > all with those and there is no info if he's interested in maintaining the > > new > > > > v2 version. > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/commit/fa2c95084ef9b575bfbe62543e0765623c9b8a0e > > > > [2] https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-ArchLinux > > > > Jordan > > It's got the same name, is written by the same author, and the versions > > begin at 2.0.0. Fwiw this is just a major version bump of the same > > package - it doesn't really matter what percentage of it has changed > > since the last version. So when it doesn't share any code, doesn't share code repository and doesn't use compatible configs it's still the same package but when it shares the same code, repository and configs and it's named securedns-proxy it will be totally different. > > Yes, that means the package in [community] is out-of-date, and no, your > > involvement with upstream doesn't matter. I'm not the package owner. > > Regards, Rob The point is that the community package which doesn't build manually and point to nonexistent sources is the one which should be deleted instead of the one from AUR. If you prefer that upstream Archlinux instructions will look the same as those for Ubuntu/Debian[*] then it will be done but it would mean that Archlinux project in current form is a joke and you role in it isn't worth a dime. [*] "Do not install the dnscrypt-proxy distribution package, as it is old, and unsupported." https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-Debian-Ubuntu Jordan
Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
On 04/04/2018 02:41 PM, Jordan Glover via aur-general wrote: > Can we get more explanation for this? This isn't a version bump. This project > was rewritten from scratch, the old sources are gone. The PKGBUILD was written > from scratch, packagement solutions were upstreamed[1]. Upstream points > specifically to this package[2]. Archlinux repo maintainer wasn't involved at > all with those and there is no info if he's interested in maintaining the new > v2 version. > > [1] > https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/commit/fa2c95084ef9b575bfbe62543e0765623c9b8a0e > [2] https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-ArchLinux > > Jordan > It's got the same name, is written by the same author, and the versions begin at 2.0.0. Fwiw this is just a major version bump of the same package - it doesn't really matter what percentage of it has changed since the last version. Yes, that means the package in [community] is out-of-date, and no, your involvement with upstream doesn't matter. Regards, Rob signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] [PRQ#11055] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go | [PRQ#11056] Deletion Request for dnscrypt-proxy-go-git
Can we get more explanation for this? This isn't a version bump. This project was rewritten from scratch, the old sources are gone. The PKGBUILD was written from scratch, packagement solutions were upstreamed[1]. Upstream points specifically to this package[2]. Archlinux repo maintainer wasn't involved at all with those and there is no info if he's interested in maintaining the new v2 version. [1] https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/commit/fa2c95084ef9b575bfbe62543e0765623c9b8a0e [2] https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-ArchLinux Jordan
