Re: [aur-general] Purge of packages orphaned, out-of-date, and last updated before 2017
On 22/1/19 1:16 pm, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote: Based on the loosely defined "cleanup criteria"[], we're overdue for a little purge. The candidates can be found here: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=&outdated=on&SB=l&SO=a&PP=250&do_Orphans=Orphans https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=250&SeB=nd&outdated=on&SB=l&SO=a&PP=250&do_Orphans=Orphans Please run `aurphan -a` to see if you have any orphaned AUR packages installed, and do everyone a favor by adopting them. If there are no objections, it will be done this weekend. A reply will be sent for record-keeping with the list of packages prior to deletion. []: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:AUR_Cleanup_Day#Possible_reasons -- Best, polyzen I'm not sure if I did something wrong? I adopted mingw-w64-freeimage (My first one) I cloned the git and followed the instructions to edit and commit the updated PKGBUILD. All appeared good. Then I realized that I needed to delete the gcc5.patch. When I tried to commit that change al I got was a 403 error? Did I do something wrong or is the package on hold until checked bu a TU? Thanks Macca
[aur-general] Purge of packages orphaned, out-of-date, and last updated before 2017
Based on the loosely defined "cleanup criteria"[], we're overdue for a little purge. The candidates can be found here: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=&outdated=on&SB=l&SO=a&PP=250&do_Orphans=Orphans https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=250&SeB=nd&outdated=on&SB=l&SO=a&PP=250&do_Orphans=Orphans Please run `aurphan -a` to see if you have any orphaned AUR packages installed, and do everyone a favor by adopting them. If there are no objections, it will be done this weekend. A reply will be sent for record-keeping with the list of packages prior to deletion. []: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:AUR_Cleanup_Day#Possible_reasons -- Best, polyzen signature.asc Description: signature
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH][tu-bylaws]: raise threshold of sponsors to two
Helloe everyone, It's been a week and the result are in: Yes:34 No : 7 Abstain: 6 Total :47 with a participation 83.93%, the vote to raise the number of TU sponsors to two has passed. Thanks to everyone for voting! -Santiago On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:37:38PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry I just realized that we're overdue on the vote for this as the > discussion period is only 5 days. > > Let the votes begin! > -Santiago. > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:23:12PM -0500, Santiago Torres wrote: > > The current threshold of applicants has raised some concerns with the TU > > community regarding the quality of the applications submitted. In order > > to improve this, increase the threshold of TU sponsors with the > > following goals: > > > > - Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs > > - Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate > > --- > > tu-bylaws.txt | 13 - > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tu-bylaws.txt b/tu-bylaws.txt > > index d32e06c..e958393 100644 > > --- a/tu-bylaws.txt > > +++ b/tu-bylaws.txt > > @@ -100,11 +100,13 @@ Addition of a TU > > > > The addition of a TU may occur at any time. > > > > -In order to become a TU, one must first find a sponsoring TU, > > -and arrange privately with them to announce their candidacy on the > > -https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general] > > mailing > > -list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences > > with a > > -discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 > > days. > > +In order to become a TU, one must first find two sponsoring TUs following > > the > > +guidelines outlined below, and arrange privately with them to announce > > their > > +candidacy on the > > +https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general] > > +mailing list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure > > commences > > +with a discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period > > of 7 > > +days. > > > > > > SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); > > @@ -113,6 +115,7 @@ SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); > > If a candidate is rejected by SVP, they may not reapply to become a Trusted > > User for a period of three months. > > > > + > > Removal of a TU > > --- > > > > -- > > 2.20.1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] pushing new package to aur fails
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 21:48:46, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> [...]
> > remote: Traceback (most recent call last):
> > remote: File "hooks/update", line 11, in
> > remote: load_entry_point('aurweb==4.7.0', 'console_scripts',
> > 'aurweb-git-update')()
> > remote: File
> > "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/aurweb-4.7.0-py3.7.egg/aurweb/git/update.py",
> > line 306, in main
> > remote: KeyError: 'pkgbase'
> [...]
> You must have the PKGBUILD and .SRCINFO available in every commit -- you
> are not permitted to first commit a README and only afterwards add the
> actual AUR contents.
We do have a check in our update hook that walks every commit can
explicitly checks for .SRCINFO and PKGBUILD. I wonder why that check
does not trigger a warning (assuming that the missing files are the
actual issue).
In any case, we should avoid exceptions in the hook and probably
safeguard against this situation.
Lukas
