[aur-general] TU resignation.
Hi all, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this, but based on mounting evidence, I've come to the conclusion that I should resign as a TU. Most of you probably already forgot I was here, and I'm sorry that I just haven't been able to keep on top of things and participate lately. A lot has happened with me over the last year: became a father, got a new job, moved house... and I'm realising that my life has changed such that I haven't found time to keep up with Arch / TU duties. I'm still a day-to-day Archer at work and home, and don't see that changing any time. And it's great to have been part of such a talented and welcoming team. Thanks to all of you for the effort you put in to keeping Arch the great distribution it is. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU resignation.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014, Thorsten Töpper wrote: well with all this you mention here it doesn't sound too bad so have fun and I hope you enjoy it. :-) Thanks, Thorsten. All is indeed well :-) Pete.
[aur-general] Inactive for a bit.
Hi all, I'm going to be inactive for a bit, I'm afraid. I'm travelling for work this week, and then moving house. Not sure how quickly I'll get Internet set up at the new place. If anyone could update choqok, then that would be great - it should be a straightforward version bump. I'm not aware of anything else impending that needs doing. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Duplication: gill-sans-font | ttf-gill-sans
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Simon Legner wrote: the packages gill-sans-font and ttf-gill-sans provide the same font. It would make sense to delete one. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9843 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18570 Merged. Thanks for the reminder, I meant to do this a while ago. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU sponsorship.
On Friday 02 Mar 2012 13:03:47 Thomas Bächler wrote: I always highlight that the Arch core developers usually don't interfere with the affairs of the TU group. In that sense, the bylaws make sense by saying you need to TU to sponsor him. However, the important part (voting) is done by TUs only. Sure, that is probably the important thing. But we should at least ensure the rules are consistent with our practice (or vice versa). Personally, I always considered the sponsor requirement an unnecessary formality anyway. Well, if that is a widely held view, then an alternative would be to remove this sponsorship thing all together and just allow direct applications to the list. Presumably it is designed to provide some sort of pre-application vetting of candidates, to not waste everyone's time? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Inactive user tdy
On Wednesday 29 Feb 2012 20:26:37 Cédric Girard wrote: I have not contacted him but he is in cc of this email. I presume you mean bcc? Either that, or you forgot to add his address to the cc. Just checking :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Ike Devolder
Hi Ike,
Thanks for applying :-)
On Thursday 01 Mar 2012 08:33:17 Ike Devolder wrote:
Currently I'm using Archlinux as my primary operating system for over 6
years and for several years I'm maintaining a small number of packages in
AUR[1]. I also keep a repository with arch packages for everyone to use[2]
and view the pkgbuilds on github[3]. Originally the repository got created
so i could easily install some non-{core,extra,community}-packages on my
different computers.
I had a quick look, and these packages all look pretty good to me. It seems
that you know your way around.
I would like to become a TU for several reasons:
- bring in some packages from AUR to community
- apper (kde packagekit frontend, the gnome/gtk ones are already in)
- lcdproc (drive your lcd displays)
- closure-{compiler,linter} (googles javascript toys)
- vim-qt (or provide a patch for addition to the extra package)
It would be nice to see another TU interested in KDE / Qt things :-)
Last but not least, my sponsor is Stéphane Gaudreault.
This is a bit picky of me, but technically the sponsor is supposed to be a TU
and as far as I can tell Stéphane is a dev rather than a TU...
Good luck with the application!
Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Ike Devolder
On Thursday 01 Mar 2012 07:51:47 Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: This is a bit picky of me, but technically the sponsor is supposed to be a TU and as far as I can tell Stéphane is a dev rather than a TU... So ... Following this logic I have the power to break everything on your system ... but not to sponsor a future member of our trusted users team ? (Just kidding :D ). Heh, quite. I didn't claim to have logic on my side, I was just highlighting what our byelaws currently say. I said it was picky, but if we're happy for Devs to sponsor TU-ship, then we should just change the rules. I didn't want to create a big discussion out of this (unless of course people do disagree with devs being sponsors), so if there aren't any reasons contra, I'll put in a proposal to amend the byelaws. I guess this came from an original idea that the group of TUs are self- governing, independently of the developers. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - György Balló
On Thursday 01 Mar 2012 23:35:16 Heiko Baums wrote: 4. AUR is meant for providing PKGBUILDs for other users, so that they don't need to do the same work again (writing the PKGBUILDs). Since e.g. indicator-messages can't be installed by other users - at least not with yaourt Sounds like you should file a bug against yaourt. And split packages are officially NOT supported by AUR, not even with this dirty workaround, which is fact, well known and often discussed, so I don't have to prove this. So his packages don't apply to the official policies. I didn't think that anything about the AUR was officially supported. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] ruby 1.9.3_p125-1 in [extra]
On Saturday 25 Feb 2012 13:43:39 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: I have released ruby 1.9.3_p125 into [extra]. Great work, Thomas. As a result of the above change, all ruby gem packages will have to add a --no-user-install flag when running gem in the PKGBUILD. Aaahh, ha haa.. I hadn't quite realised this when we were discussing this before. This is going to affect a lot of packages... where will they install things within the $pkgdir structure without this flag? I guess it will depend on how the package is being built.. (i.e. using devtools, makepkg as a user etc...)? Is there a way to generate a list of packages that this affects? I.e. all those which use gem to install stuff within the PKGBUILD? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Deletion Request lirc-utils-git
On Monday 20 Feb 2012 09:47:12 Mark Foxwell wrote: Please delete my package lirc-utils-git [1] as this was only created as a quick fix for a compile error and is no longer needed. Alternatively, if anyone thinks this package is of any use, I will just disown. If it works, IMO it might be useful to keep around, in case other people have a need. Feel free to disown it though, if you don't want to maintain it yourself. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Removal request: Malicious package
On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 15:21:57 Dimitri Semitsoglou-Tsiapos wrote: Package testtesrdfdfdfa script src=//bit.ly/xN4HZd-2/* [1] appears to exist for the sole purpose of attempting cross-site scripting. Deleted. Thanks for flagging this up. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] disowning a couple of packages
On Monday 13 Feb 2012 19:03:55 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: If you plan on adopting sage-mathematics, you should know that it is currently unbuildable on archlinux, and some other newer distros due to how it is built. It is currently out of date, and you wont be able to update it without fixing this. Sorry, but I stand by my decision and will not be maintaining sage any longer. I don't blame you at all, though this is a shame, since the idea of sage was so promising. Perhaps distros and others like us should be making upstream aware of how difficult maintaining it can be, given the way they organise it all, and how this is leading us to drop it from our repos. Apologies if you've already tried this. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Packages available to adopt in community
On Thursday 02 Feb 2012 12:46:21 Moritz Rudert wrote: I would like to the python-packages, but, like Christoph, I am not a TU yet and don't know how I become one? Is that a question or a statement? ;-) It's all in the TU byelaws: http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [Deletion request] enbudget
On Friday 13 Jan 2012 02:12:31 David Rawson Couzelis wrote: Please delete the enbudget AUR package. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47010 The application has been renamed divvyup. A new AUR package has been created with the new name. I am both the maintainer of the AUR package and the author of the application. Thanks. I merged enbudget into divvyup. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [orphan request] charles 3.6.3-1
Hi, On Friday 13 Jan 2012 03:01:52 Ernie Brodeur wrote: The package charles-3.6.3-1 has been flagged out of date since nov 30th. I would like to adopt it, is it possible to get it disowned? Please send an email to the maintainer first, asking them to update it, or if you can take over. If you don't receive a reply within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. two weeks), please come back to us with a request. Thanks, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] New package: ttytter
Hi Pablo, On Wednesday 11 Jan 2012 20:56:03 Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C. wrote: Well... this isn't new really... until a couple of weeks ago (prolly less) there were an outdated version. I tried to communicate with the maintainer, but he never answered. Now I found that the package doesn't exist so I guess he must deleted it. Actually, I moved it to [community] since it seemed popular :-) I dropped a comment on the old AUR package before deleting it - didn't you receive the email? Sorry for the duplicate effort... Pete.
Re: [aur-general] dropboxd-userspace
On Friday 23 Dec 2011 14:41:09 Karol Blazewicz wrote: Was dropboxd-userspace just removed or merged with dropbox-daemon? Peter Lewis asked [1] does merging also transfer the notify list? so to test this I subscribed to dropboxd-userspace but not to dropbox-daemon. Now the former package is gone and I'm not auto-subscribed to the latter. Thanks! Good to know. Pete. [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-December/017094.html
Re: [aur-general] Unlicensed code
On Wednesday 21 Dec 2011 23:12:38 full-engl...@live.co.uk wrote: Does anyone know what the usual procedure is if the code is unlicensed? This will almost certainly vary by jurisdiction. In England and Wales at least (as far as I understand it) no code is unlicensed - copyright is automatic and there is just an implicit default licence which is restrictive (i.e. you can't copy it). This is why you should always stick a licence on your code, especially if you don't care who uses it ;-) Thanks Pete, I've contacted the author so I'll wait and see what he says. Wandering slightly off topic do you know how things stand with using/packaging unlicensed code (AUR/PKGBUILDS/Pkgs etc.). If the default is restrictive then surely that would be prohibited as well? Oh, well the AUR doesn't redistribute code, just scripts (which you write) for installing code and a link to upstream (this one way in which it differs from our binary repos). There's nothing wrong with putting a PKGBUILD in the AUR in your case, as far as I can see. HTH, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Git sparse checkouts
On Wednesday 21 Dec 2011 20:07:42 full-engl...@live.co.uk wrote: Does anyone know what the usual procedure is if the code is unlicensed? This will almost certainly vary by jurisdiction. In England and Wales at least (as far as I understand it) no code is unlicensed - copyright is automatic and there is just an implicit default licence which is restrictive (i.e. you can't copy it). This is why you should always stick a licence on your code, especially if you don't care who uses it ;-) Contacting the author is the best way to go. HTH, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Qt 4.8 hits [testing] + qtwebkit package
On Thursday 22 Dec 2011 01:12:04 Ionut Biru wrote: Seems like there's another new dependence, qtwebkit pulls in phonon, this didn't happen when it was part of qt. Why is this? because in the past he didn't built html5 support in qt. It would be insane(from kde perspective) to have gstreamer as dependency for qt :) Perhaps, but isn't gstreamer the preferred backend for phonon these days? http://userbase.kde.org/Phonon#Backend_libraries Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Qt 4.8 hits [testing] + qtwebkit package
Hi, On Tuesday 20 Dec 2011 10:01:00 Andrea Scarpino wrote: But - HTML5 video and audio tags aren't working for me. I tried it in konqueror, rekonq and aurora. The first frame of the video loads, but it won't play. This is with either gstreamer or vlc phonon backends. I tried youtube in HTML5 mode and also http://tinyvid.tv/. Same result. html5test.com reports that everything is fine for video except subtitles. Is kwebkitpart installed? Yes, here's what I have: % pacman -Qi qt Name : qt Version: 4.8.0-2 Packager : Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org Architecture : x86_64 Build Date : Sun 18 Dec 2011 05:11:53 AM GMT % pacman -Qi qtwebkit Name : qtwebkit Version: 2.2.0-3 Packager : Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org Architecture : x86_64 Build Date : Fri 16 Dec 2011 09:01:15 AM GMT % pacman -Qi kwebkitpart Name : kwebkitpart Version: 1.2.0-2 Packager : Andrea Scarpino and...@archlinux.org Architecture : x86_64 Build Date : Sun 18 Dec 2011 09:22:30 AM GMT % pacman -Qi rekonq Name : rekonq Version: 0.8.1-1 Packager : Peter Richard Lewis ple...@aur.archlinux.org Architecture : x86_64 Build Date : Tue 13 Dec 2011 09:41:44 AM GMT I also tried it with a rebuild of rekonq but the same happened. Also, try re-installing it if you had the previous one (the one built with qt 4.8rc1). So, I don't have this, right? I can reproduce any video in the website you linked above. (ReKonq + phonon- vlc here) This made me think that it might be a codec issue, but I have every gstreamer0.10-plugin package installed and phonon backend is set to Gstreamer. And, if I put the URL of a video *file* (not tag) straight into rekonq, it plays perfectly. There's no need to rebuild phonon, I'm using 1.6.0 right now and that is built upon [extra]. Indeed, you can try rebuilding kwebkitpart if html5 video still don't work. I just rebuilt kwebkitpart as you suggested, and that made no difference unfortunately. This is strange - the first frame of the video does display and the buttons sort of work, i.e. the volume button changes colour when I click on it - but the video doesn't play. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Remove request: pure-svn
On Tuesday 20 Dec 2011 22:46:14 Alastair Pharo wrote: I've recently taken over some of the ophaned pure-* packages, including pure-svn. Thanks Alastair. I found that in fact the Pure project migrated from subversion to mercurial some time ago (see http://groups.google.com/group/pure-lang/browse_thread/thread/43cbd5c494c0f4 85/d32ecaa860f7b192?lnk=gstq=mercurial#d32ecaa860f7b192), so I have created a pure-hg package to replace this. The pure-svn package doesn't compile and is no longer needed now, so I think it should be removed. I merged it into pure-hg. Please include links to the packages next time. (Actually - it had no votes or comments, but does merging also transfer the notify list?) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Timothy Redaelli (tredaeli) TU application - voting period
On Thursday 15 Dec 2011 15:41:55 Andrea Scarpino wrote: That means we can welcome Timothy Redaelli as new TU team member. Congratulations! Congratulations Timothy! Welcome to the team! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] orphan request for frandom
On Sunday 04 Dec 2011 23:18:13 Dave Reisner wrote: Sounds like a good candidate for orphanage. Have at it. oooh.. orphanage as a nouned verb. yum.
Re: [aur-general] Developer/TU key signing
On Friday 25 Nov 2011 15:27:28 Ionut Biru wrote: Every packager please do: 1) reply this email in the mailing list, include gerolde/sigurd username and sign your reply using your gpg key. plewis 2) name at least one package you already signed. pigeonhole
Re: [aur-general] Developer/TU key signing
On Friday 02 Dec 2011 22:24:12 Ionut Biru wrote: missing signature. dammit! sorry... hang on...
Re: [aur-general] Developer/TU key signing
On Friday 25 Nov 2011 15:27:28 Ionut Biru wrote: Every packager please do: 1) reply this email in the mailing list, include gerolde/sigurd username and sign your reply using your gpg key. plewis 2) name at least one package you already signed. pigeonhole signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] Developer / TU key signing, first master key available
On Monday 28 Nov 2011 15:12:53 Thomas Bächler wrote: Please note: There are many TUs (and some devs) that didn't reply to this request yet. Sorry - I haven't replied to any yet and won't get a chance to until the weekend. Hope that doesn't delay anything... :-)
Re: [aur-general] Please remove my AUR account
On Wednesday 30 Nov 2011 22:14:21 Xyne wrote: Dave Reisner wrote: the off topic train goes choo choo crash boom Back on topic, I agree with Pierre (as I usually do in issues regarding privacy and security). AUR accounts should be deletable. Names can be reserved for a fixed period (from 3 months to 1 year) to prevent confusion. I agree. It seems that the AUR isn't hosted in Europe, but this seems like a good idea and might be relevant nonetheless: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8388033/Online-right-to-be- forgotten-confirmed-by-EU.html Pete.
Re: [aur-general] GPG Key Signing
On Thursday 01 Dec 2011 09:08:39 Thomas Dziedzic wrote: I do find it kind of abnormal that a TU does want to retain his real name. To be fair that are loads of potential reasons why someone wouldn't want their actual identity disclosed in a place where discussions are archived on the web with timestamps and everything. He could be doing all this in a place where free use of the Internet is forbidden, could be on a witness protection programme, could be doing it while at work and slacking off and not wanting to get caught, could actually be Kim Jong Il in his spare time. Seriously, we have no way to judge reasons or not. And this isn't specific to Xyne, or anyone else. My real name is actually Robert Parks. Perhaps. :-p There may be legitimate reasons for doing this or not, I don't know. But I also have to agree with Thomas on this one. I don't think anyone has actually verified that any of the given names are real names. What's important is that you're verified that you use the key to sign your packages in case someone does get compromised or decides to go rogue, then we will have a way to easily track which packages should become void. Absolutely. Let's not turn into Google+ over this one... Pete.
Re: [aur-general] delete package
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011, Axilleas P wrote: Please delete again pyhon2-gitissius due to typo. I built on a different machine where the typo still existed. Sorry for the confusion... https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=53861 gone.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Sébastien Luttringer
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011, Seblu wrote: I'm applying to be a TU. My sponsor is Dave Reisner. Excellent - great to see you applying again! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Mass Orphan
I can take these: banner (along with shhmsg and shhopt) freesynd qwit sopwith whichwayisup Just orphan the rest if you're not intending on maintaining them any more. People can pick them up themselves then. Cheers, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] replies
Hi Jonathan, Please fix your mail client so that it doesn't break threads when you post replies. (I'm not quite sure what you did, since it's always worked out of the box for me...) Otherwise, it's really difficult to follow a conversation. Thanks, Pete. On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Jonathan Steel wrote: It states in the README-SDL file: ... You can disable it (GTK) at run-time by passing the --nogui 1 option, or disable it build time by setting GTK to 0 in the SConstruct file.
Re: [aur-general] Removal request - fceux-nogui
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Jonathan Steel wrote: Obsolete; as of the latest version you can now compile with --nogui. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38760 According to the comment on the AUR page, the latest version can be *run* with --nogui and doesn't need to be recompiled. But, this package provides a version which doesn't require GTK. This is a legitimate reason for an AUR package, as far as I can see. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU application
Hi Jonathan, Thanks for your interest. I don't personally think it's a problem that you don't currently have a sponsor, since I think people should be able to solicit to the list if they would like to apply, rather than being required to ask people off-list. Obviously the discussion period and voting can't happen until a sponsor indicates though. How long have you been maintaining your AUR packages for? While you've been using Arch for a while, I wonder whether it would be good for you to have a few more AUR packages before becoming a TU. Others may think differently though. Either way, it's good to have you involved. Just out of interest, where in the UK are you based? (I'm in Birmingham.) Pete. On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Jonathan Steel wrote: Hi, I'm interested in becoming a TU. I've been using Arch for nearly 4 years (Linux for 7) and recently started getting involved maintaining packages in the AUR. I would love to see some of these in community, help more in the AUR, extend my Arch knowledge and get to know other Arch users. I would be interested in helping out wherever I can; I already spend a good hour every day or two messing around with my Arch setups so instead of tweaking not-so-necessary things I can do something more helpful. I would enjoy the learning curve and experience and I'm quick to pick things up. A little info about me: 26, male, UK, IT manager, Christian, husband/father, retro gamer, sense of humour, perfectionist. Many thanks, jsteel
Re: [aur-general] Request to add a rule
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Christopher luna wrote: Im not even asking you to agree with me, Im asking you to vote and decide if including urls to warez on pkgbuilds that are on AUR is OFFICIALY ok, or not. again is not about they being propietary software or about providing installers. Is ONLY about urls to warez. they are ok or not? I think this is a legitimate question. But to be honest, despite what any of us think, it should probably be answered by whoever legally is Archlinux. Aaron, perhaps? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Dynamically evaluating md5sum value in PKGBUILD
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Maciej Sitarz wrote: I'm maintaining hunspell-pl AUR package (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44331). The problem with the package is that the maintainer of the source provides only the latest(daily) tarball snapshot. The md5sum of the tarball changes daily and the old files are removed. The packages is very often marked as 'outdated' and I'm asked to update it, both via comments and email. Sounds like it might be a candidate to recast as a -vcs package, if upstream makes the contents of the tarball available over some vcs system... Pete.
Re: [aur-general] single-user gnome-shell-theme pkgs
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Xyne wrote: PKGBUILDs should not install anything in a user's home directory. Absolutely. This should be a hard rule IMO. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Flashplugin Duplicates
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011, Lukas Fleischer wrote: I usually drop a comment before removing a package, so that at least all users on the notification list get informed. In case of doubt, you can almost always check aur-general. Yeah, this is a really good idea IMO. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Remove request
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 08:28:56 PM OK wrote: Please remove this package: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=49444 I created new one with different name. Done Can we include package names on removal request emails please? This thread is kinda useless in the archive and I don't know if package ID 49444 was one that I was using... :-/ Thanks! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Remove request
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011, Andrea Scarpino wrote: On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 07:46:15 PM Peter Lewis wrote: Can we include package names on removal request emails please? This thread is kinda useless in the archive and I don't know if package ID 49444 was one that I was using... :-/ You're right. He didn't and I forgot to write it too. The package was kernel-eee-ck. Thanks Andrea :-)
Re: [aur-general] Mass orphan all ghost1227 packages
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Justin Davis wrote: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34686 clyde-git Looks like this is no longer being developed :-( /me hopes someone pops up to prove him wrong...
Re: [aur-general] Delete firefox-firebug
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Florian Pritz wrote: If you agree with this, a firefox-firebug could be re-uploaded, replacing the actual firefox-extension-firebug-stable. I'd say go with it, but we should probably wait for at least one more opinion on the matter. Sounds good to me; I'm all for naming consistency. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Delete Request
Hi, On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, speps wrote: Hi, plowshare recently switched from svn to git plowshare-svn [1] can be deleted, since plowshare-git [2] replaces it [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31779 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51591 Sounds good - but I just wondered why the change in maintainer due to this? dserban should probably have the chance to continue to maintain this if he wants... I don't think we should take packages away from people if they are still actively maintaining them. (in my opinion) Pete. PS. cc'ing dserban
Re: [aur-general] Delete Request
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Peter Lewis wrote: PS. cc'ing dserban Okay, I heard back from dserban. The SVN package has gone. Thanks speps. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Delete Request
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, speps wrote: I already uploaded plowshare-git, cause I actually maintain plowshare, and i'm used to follow its development, since the actual project leader release a snapshot every 10~ days. Oh excellent, makes sense then. Btw, you're right. I'll disown it, if dserban wants to maintain it. Thanks, but no worries, he told me he's happy to orphan it. Enjoy :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Removal Request
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, gadget3000 wrote: tux-ragnarok-full (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34062) - Dead multiplayer project. Dead source link and I can't find a mirror. 3 votes and hasn't been updated since Feb 2010. No maintainer. Agreed - deleted. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Removal Request
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, gadget3000 wrote: theforgottenserver-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21881) The svn repository is no longer available to the public (Source: http://otland.net/f55/moved-private-subversion-11833/). There used to be a public repository at http://svn.otland.net/public/forgottenserver; but that no longer exists (Since February 2009 by looks of the forum post edit). 2 votes and no maintainer. I'm going to suggest leaving this in the AUR for now. You're right that the development SVN server was made private, but there's still a public SVN server where they upload releases, alphas, betas, etc. http://otland.net/subversion.php?svn=public Since there isn't currently any package for any of these non-bleeding-edge versions, I think it makes sense to keep this PKGBUILD around until someone who uses this wants to modify it to use the public SVN server. You're doing a great job going through all these old AUR entries though - thanks! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Removal Requests
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, gadget3000 wrote: falldown (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11856) is a dead project and has a dead source link. I can't find a mirror. poker3d (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9894) is a dead multiplayer only project. Dead source link, I found a mirror here ( http://download.gna.org/underware/poker3d/gnulinux/fedora/fc6/src/redhat/SOURCES/) but it's for a lower version. nero (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6413) is a dead project and has a dead source link. I can't find a mirror. pokenet-client-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42470) looks like a dead project (http://www.ohloh.net/p/pokenetonline). Homepage gives a 403 as does svnroot. No maintainer and no votes. Not updated since October. Deleted, thanks for investigating. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Request for PKGBUILD check: perl-pdl 2.4.9-1
Hi, On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Anton Leontiev wrote: Currently I'm stuck with makedepends/optdepends. There is a number of dependencies which are optional, but to get PDL work with them as with optional packages in Arch, it should be compiled with them. So I added the in both makedepends and optdepends. Am I right? Yes. If they're optional dependencies to enable extra functionality, but are required to be present at compile time to enable this, then you should add them to makedepends as well. The only purpose of optdepends to my knowledge is to provide the user with a nice message when they install the package to let them know that the package will have some extra functionality if some other packages are also installed. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] VCS dupes in the AUR
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, J. W. Birdsong wrote: On 04/12/11 at 10:00pm, Stefan Husmann wrote: On 12.04.2011 08:58, Peter Lewis wrote: Done a bit of research... On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Stefan Husmann wrote: irssi (VCS) * irssi-svn https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6163 * irssi-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25781 These both seem official, though the main website points to the SVN repo and not the git one. However, it seems many contributors are using git since it's easier to send in patches etc. I couldn't find out how often they're synced, but I assume it's pretty regular. So, it's probably worth either keeping both, or just going with git only. I prefer maintaining svn-versions over git-versions in AUR, because the have revision numbers as $pkgver, not just a date. Regards Stefan I maintain irssi-svn, but only picked it up some time ago because it needed fix/updating. So no big deal if y'all decide it should go. I suppose as the discussion on this has grown cold I'll assume we're going to keep both? Seem no real conscience was reached. It probably doesn't matter if we keep both, since both are official, as long as both work. So long as maintainers don't feel that their efforts are wasted, that is... (admittedly maintaining a -svn or -git package in the AUR requires minimal effort.) I'll drop/delete it if needed. JB It's not needed, and given Stefan's message, some people will use it. It's up to you, as a maintainer, I'd say. Do you have reasons for not using -git? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] VCS dupes in the AUR
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:45:52PM +0200, Martti Kühne wrote: +1 for *-git vcs dupes to stay, where upstream vcs is a different one. -1 for removal of vcs dupes in general, since apparently different people prefer different vcs. Besides, how much space are these taking all together? 600Kb? The main point is removing packages where upstream moved to a different VCS and the old VCS repositories are either gone or unmaintained. What they said :-) Is this principle worthy of recording somewhere on the wiki as part of a vcs packages policy? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] VCS dupes in the AUR
Done a bit of research... On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Stefan Husmann wrote: irssi (VCS) * irssi-svn https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6163 * irssi-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25781 These both seem official, though the main website points to the SVN repo and not the git one. However, it seems many contributors are using git since it's easier to send in patches etc. I couldn't find out how often they're synced, but I assume it's pretty regular. So, it's probably worth either keeping both, or just going with git only. tmux (VCS) * tmux-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35618 * tmux-cvs https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25719 Well, the CVS one is the official upstream, however the main dev also maintains the git repo with an hourly sync from CVS. Martti Kühne, maintainer of tmux-cvs said on this list in January: tmux-cvs is my package. tmux-git is a tmux developer's synchronisation which doesn't use a separate build directory, but may come in handy because it's git and the commit history is present. snip scratch mine as well... tmux-git is just fine. So tmux-vcs could be deleted, if others agree. HTH, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Takeover Request
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011, 郑文辉 wrote: It is typical to give maintainers at least a week. Also, have you tried directly emailing them? Yes, I think the defacto usual practice is to email people directly and then leave a week if urgent, preferably two weeks. It's quite usual for people to go on holiday, etc. Thanks, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Reflector
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: I'll correct myself then, gmail+pentadactyl does not like the combination of mailing lists I'm on. Some of them are badly configured (thankfully none of the Arch ones) and have to be used with reply-to-all, hence sometimes I press the wrong button, not remembering which list I'm on. When I was using Evolution it was easy, Ctrl-L (reply-to-list) did everything for me, but with web gmail there's no such button and I have to remember whether to reply/reply-all depending on the list. I'll try not to make the mistake again =). Umm... then don't use it, then, in favour of a client that works? Seriously though, I've never used GMail, but I see so many people on various lists apologising for the way it handles email. Just don't do it, kids. /blowtorch
Re: [aur-general] Web-client for emails: [WAS:Reflector]
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Loui Chang wrote: On Tue 05 Apr 2011 18:00 +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote: Gmail's web interface has THE best approach to threading. Ever. If you have any other suggestion (web client or linux desktop client) which comes anywhere close please let me know. Evolution's threading just doesn't cut it, thunderbird's new one is close, but thunderbird is basically a mouse-only interface, the keyboard shortcuts are so horrific (and muttator is an abortion of a project AFAICS). I've spent quite some time exploring the options, and settled on this. Ideas always welcome, of course. Sorry I don't know a desktop program, but sup (a console app) supposedly emulates gmail. http://sup.rubyforge.org/ Yeah, sup is still a little experimental but quite an awesome client. Also, for version 2, they are planning on splitting out the client and server functionality into two separate projects, which makes me salivate somewhat. I use mutt these days, which handles threading quite well. I also really really like KMail (I used it for around 10 years), but it's just got too slow and resource intensive with all the nepomuk stuff. Pete (who just can't bare the idea of using a web browser to do his email.)
Re: [aur-general] svn tweak
Hi, On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Ray Rashif wrote: Is the packaging workflow not clear enough from the guidelines? I have to admit (and I don't intend to offend anyone) that I found it a little confusing at first, though the how to be a packager page appears to have become a little clearer recently :-) It confused me a little that the How to use SVN and The Process sections are separate but cover some of the same matierial, though the latter with e.g. communitypkg, which then doesn't require some of the aforementioned steps. I guess looking back it might have been helpful to have the process laid out separately for the use cases of I want to add, build and release a new package and I am maintaining a package and want to upgrade it, build it and release it. Does this make sense? Pete. PS. Having said that, I don't think there's any major problem with the instructions (but since you asked, eh?) We all obviously learnt how to do it (unless I was the one who made the mistakes and everyone's being very polite!)
Re: [aur-general] TU application (Kyle Keen)
On Wednesday 02 March 2011 17:28:51 Xyne wrote: keenerd wrote: Hi guys. I am Kyle Keen (keenerd) and am applying to be a TU, sponsored by Xyne. I have indeed agreed to sponsor Comrade Keen in his bid to infiltrate the ...wait -- should that not be Commander Keen? ;-) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Commander_Keen What a great game that was, back in the day! Pete. PS. Good luck Kyle!
Re: [aur-general] TU application (Kyle Keen)
On Wednesday 02 March 2011 18:57:00 Peter Lewis wrote: On Wednesday 02 March 2011 17:28:51 Xyne wrote: keenerd wrote: Hi guys. I am Kyle Keen (keenerd) and am applying to be a TU, sponsored by Xyne. I have indeed agreed to sponsor Comrade Keen in his bid to infiltrate the ...wait -- should that not be Commander Keen? ;-) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Commander_Keen What a great game that was, back in the day! ...double wait! http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=39100 :-D
Re: [aur-general] Adding AUR packages to [community] packages' provides
On Friday 25 February 2011 11:12:15 Lukas Fleischer wrote: Well, I'm addressing current blacklisting issues with the AUR [1]. I noticed that some of the packages in the official repos have AUR packages as provides, some of them (well, at least one of them, didn't search for more) were even added due to FRs [2]. Donnu if this applies to [core] and [extra] as well. Is that regular practice? Imho, we shouldn't do that. The AUR is something to be considered separately. If we start to care about provides/conflicts with AUR packages, we'll need to add all -devel/-svn/-git/-beta packages in the AUR to the official packages conflicts and provides as well. And we'll need to start searching for alternative repos to ensure there's no conflict with our official packages. Seriously, we should be consistent here. Can't remember where I read this being discussed, but I'm pretty sure that no package in [core], [extra] or [community] should reference anything in the AUR. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [arch-general] Package deletion request
On Monday 14 February 2011 13:02:54 Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: On 14 February 2011 13:43, D. Can Celasun dcela...@gmail.com wrote: I've adopted, updated and reuploaded the ejecter[1] package as indicator-ejecter[2] to follow the general naming convention regarding Ayatana packages [3] . Can someone please delete the original ejecter package? [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20493 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=46497 [3] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=99746p=1 Thanks. Deleted ejecter. So were we both able to delete these simultaneously and the interface let us? Is this totally safe? Just a thought... Pete.
Re: [aur-general] AUR Copyright
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 18:42:15 Felix Kaiser wrote: WRT licenses, I too think BSD would be a good choice for obvious reasons (permissive, short/simple, widely used, unversioned, compatible to most other licenses). That is, if we need a license at all. This licensing stuff always gets in the way, I wish there was a way we could avoid it. I agree that it can be a bit dull, but this licensing stuff is what has given all this wonderful software and it's usually worth getting it right. Some very clever people had quite a bit of foresight when they designed (e.g.) the GPL, in my opinion. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Wednesday 09 February 2011 00:32:17 Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 17:57 +0100, Alexander Rødseth wrote: I would like to add that for some AUR-users, the packages is what they would have to show for if they were to apply to become a TU. As far as I know, the AUR history is not recorded in any accessible way. - Alexander (trontonic on AUR / xyproto on #archlinux) This is a good point, but I'd assume the users in question would have their latest copy of the PKGBUILD on their machine if they wanted to use it in applying. Their name would also be on the PKGBUILD in [community] in any case. Two very good points. In that case we should be very clear that if a package is moved up the repo ranking or otherwise adopted, that all contributors' names remain on there as a matter of policy (is it already?) I don't believe anyone has a right to remove a contributor's name unless they also remove the code they contributed. Given that it's unlikely that they know exactly what this is, the only case for this is a total rewrite. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] AUR Copyright
On Monday 07 February 2011 11:23:01 Ray Rashif wrote: 2011/2/7 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkov...@gmail.com: I don't think it matters whether PKGBUILDs are software or not. It never did, but now it does :) That sounds to me like saying all bash scripts have to be under GPL, because BASH is licensed under GPL. If you want to look at it that way, then sure. Yeah, I can't see that there's any such /requirement/ for PKGBUILDs to be GPL just because bash is, but it does make sense to me that they should be. Most other Arch owned stuff is GPL, right? This also avoids the need to transfer ownership of the copyright to Arch, although doing so would make it easier to (for example) relicence under GPL 4 or somesuch at a later date. The FSFE developed the Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA) just for this kind of thing: http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/fla.en.html As an aside, I wonder how many people can really claim to be the original authors of the work in the PKGBUILD? I for sure usually copy and paste the software's build instructions from upstream's website or README, and then modify it to work with Arch / fit in the PKGBUILD functions. This sounds like derivative work anyway, to me. But then, which insane upstream person is going to put any restrictions on people sharing instructions for building their software? My vote would just be for using GPL or BSD for them (possibly with an FLA- style copyright assignment). GPL seems sensible, because everything else is GPL too. The problem with assigning ownership to Arch without an explicit agreement about how, is that technically Arch could then stop the submitter of the PKGBUILD from distributing what he wrote :-/ The FLA avoids this, AFAICT. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] AUR Copyright
On Monday 07 February 2011 17:46:08 Bernardo Barros wrote: 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear y...@marupa.net: Sure you can change licenses if you own (Hold copyright to.) all the relevant code involved. That's way OT, but I'm curious now... :-). Then if I did a BSD code that a company used in their proprietary code, and then I change it to GPL, what happens then? The company will have to open their derivative code too? No. The version that you last released under the BSD licence would still be available under the BSD licence. You can't change this retroactively. If you later added code to it under the GPL and (were therefore required to) switch the whole program to GPL (due to the relationship between the BSD and GPL licences) then anyone basing their work off (and releasing of course) the versions after the last BSD licence would be required to make their subsequent derivatives and linked code GPL too. What I see is people releasing prior proprietary code unde GPL, but not from BSD to GPL. BSD code can be merged into GPL code if the whole thing becomes GPL, but the reverse is not true. (This is often why GPL Linux has better hardware drivers than BSD.) HTH, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Resignation
Hi Andrea, On Monday 07 February 2011 19:25:03 Andrea Scarpino wrote: Hi TUs, it's my time to leave the [community] repo. Ah! Well, thanks for all your work. More time to focus on KDE in [extra], eh? :-D I orphaned more packages in the last year and now I orphan the rest: - choqok - quoauth - rekonq I'm happy to take over these, since I occasionally use / build them anyway. Cheers, Pete.
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] Please remove packages from aur
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 13:07:02 white...@gmail.com wrote: please, can someone remove from aur the following packages, because related projects are discontinued and sources are not available anymore http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35691 akonadigdata-svn http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35485 libgdata-cpp-svn Both deleted. Please include the package names in the email in future too, since the mailing list also acts as a kind of archive so that people can see when packages they use are being / were deleted. Thanks, Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Seblu - Results.
On Sunday 23 January 2011 16:15:41 Peter Lewis wrote: On Sunday 16 January 2011 21:07:28 Peter Lewis wrote: On Sunday 16 January 2011 20:37:13 Seblu wrote: Tonight I decided to propose me as TU. My sponsor is Peter Lewis. I am indeed. Let the discussion period begin! The discussion period has now ended and voting can begin. Please pop along to the AUR to do so: http://aur.archlinux.org/tu.php?id=47 Voting is now closed and the results are in: Yes - 7 No - 11 Abstain - 5 Quoracy was reached (74%) with a total of 23 / 31 active+voting TUs casting their votes. Sorry Sébastien, on this occasion I'm afraid you were unsuccessful. According to the bylaws, you're welcome to apply again after a minimum period of three months. I wonder if it might be useful at this stage for some of the TUs to give Sébastien some advice on improving his application in case he decides to reapply in the future. Cheers, Peter.
Re: [aur-general] AUR deletion button.
Hi Lukas, On Tuesday 25 January 2011 17:59:21 Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:43:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: I would also ask, is there a way to generate a list of packages that have been flaged out of date for more than n days? Yes, there is. We did something similar during the last AUR cleanup (about three months ago iirc) to delete all packages that have been flagged for a long time. We also pushed a patch to aur.git [1] that adds out-of-date timestamps to packages in the package details view which might make life for TUs (and users as well) a bit easier (will be in 1.8.0). +1 to this, a TU dashboard like that would be awesome. There is a feature request for a Flag for deletion button [2], feel free to join the discussion in the comments section. I'll look into that later. This probably won't go into 1.8.0 tho. I did a bit of work on this particular feature a few months ago and there was some discussion and there are also some patches on aur-dev. These probably need looking at again - but should work. I haven't had time recently since starting my new job :-( Here was some of the discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001204.html Here were the latest patches I wrote: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001231.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001230.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001229.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001228.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001227.html And here was an example mail that would be sent (similar emails get sent to aur-general, the maintainer and the notify list): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2010-September/001232.html The latest was that Loui wanted to deprecate pkgedit.php, and that's where I'd implemented it! It seemed sensible to me to put the form to collect the reasons for the deletion request from the user in there. These might not be how you want to do it, but given that I don't have enough time right now, they might help someone get started :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Seblu - Voting open.
On Sunday 16 January 2011 21:07:28 Peter Lewis wrote: On Sunday 16 January 2011 20:37:13 Seblu wrote: Tonight I decided to propose me as TU. My sponsor is Peter Lewis. I am indeed. Let the discussion period begin! The discussion period has now ended and voting can begin. Please pop along to the AUR to do so: http://aur.archlinux.org/tu.php?id=47 There is a potential slight complication in that the byelaws have changed during the application process. However, since the vote itself started after the voting rules were changed, it seems sensible to me that this vote happens under the new byelaws. If anyone sees fit to disagree, please say so. (It is likely that it won't affect the outcome anyway, but you never know...) Thanks, and good luck Seblu! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] delete request
On Thursday 20 January 2011 00:18:40 member kittykatt wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.dewrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 05:53:51PM -0500, jonathan wrote: please delete http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22403 as I am not developing it, and it is redundant to pkgfile. Done, thanks! It'd be nice to know exactly what package is being deleted... Yeah indeed - please include the package name in deletion requests. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application -Thomas Hatch: Voting period
On Thursday 20 January 2011 15:32:49 Ionuț Bîru wrote: The results are: yes 20 no0 abstain 8 Congratulations Tom! Welcome aboard the good ship TU! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Changing AUR development infrastructure.
On Monday 17 January 2011 01:19:22 Loui Chang wrote: Recently I've had the idea that I should move the 'main' AUR git repo, which I have been the caretaker of to the community server where all other community and AUR development is done. This would also mean we would have to run a git daemon, and should also install a web interface like cgit to browse the repo. I'm hearing that there is some opposition to this. I'd like to start a discussion to hear the reasons behind that. Here are the reasons I have for moving the repo: * The Trusted Users will have more control over the AUR development since it will be on their own server. * We can use the new infrastructure to host other TU and community projects. * We don't need to create superfluous shell accounts on gerolde to for push access to those repos. Those accounts already exist on sigurd. Seems sensible to me. Point 2 might be a bonus, if we make it easy for TUs to set up new projects, then we might see more being hosted here. Make it a bit of a hub, so to speak. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Seblu
On Sunday 16 January 2011 20:37:13 Seblu wrote: Tonight I decided to propose me as TU. My sponsor is Peter Lewis. I am indeed. Let the discussion period begin! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Please delete ttf-ms-extrafonts
On Thursday 13 January 2011 17:01:42 Ng Oon-Ee wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 16:57 +0100, Stefan Husmann wrote: Am 13.01.2011 16:00, schrieb Marcel Korpel: Hi everyone, Can someone please delete ttf-ms-extrafonts [1]; it has no maintainer and as mutlu_inek said in the comments his ttf-vista-fonts [2] provides the same fonts and has a more liberal license. Regards, Marcel [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35297 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10408 Done, thank you. Slight OT, thanks for pointing out this package, I now have more font compatibility than previously =) Indeed! Even more OT, wouldn't it be kinda cool if there was a mailing list or something where people could post simply with news of new packages? I can't imagine it would be very high traffic, but it would be interesting to read in order to try new software out. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] delete request
On Tuesday 11 January 2011 21:02:31 Brad Fanella wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Peter Lewis ple...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: Where's Xyne when you need him? I think you mean sleep of which you speak ;-P Nope. Sorry. You're wrong. :-P Grammarians have come to the consensus that it is alright to end a sentence with a preposition, in cases such as What did you step on?. From the looks of it, a preposition can end a sentence if it is preceded by a verb (at least from what I have observed). Meh, that is just something up with which I will not put! (But yes, you're right. But it is fun.)
Re: [aur-general] Task[warrior]
On Monday 10 January 2011 10:26:14 Magnus Therning wrote: Does anyone know why this package does not use upstream name ? There is no way to tell this task package is Task Warrior except looking to the URI. There's some confusion on the upstream page, taskwarrior.org. Text like Taskwarrior is an ambitious project to supercharge task with an interactive interface, GTD features, color themes, data synch, dependencies, custom reports, charts, and Lua plugins, all while our international team provides excellent support! make it sound like 'taskwarrior' is a layer on top of something called 'task'. But then the download file is http://www.taskwarrior.org/download/task-1.9.3.tar.gz The package is called 'task' by upstream in all distro files they provide too. No matter how confusing this is, I would say that 'task' is the correct package name for the program taskwarrior :-) You're right, but it might be worth including something like AKA taskwarrior in the description, to help people searching for that term. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Does anyone use tdl?
On Saturday 08 January 2011 23:23:26 Mike Sampson wrote: [1]: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/tdl/ I use it. However, if you know better applications for the same job, please tell me. Task Warrior - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22085 +1, this is great. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] voting period for Dave Reisner
On Saturday 11 December 2010 20:21:53 Dave Reisner wrote: yes 29 no 0 abstain 1 Welcome in our team. Todo: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#TODO_lis t_for_new_Trusted_Users Wow! I'm just going to play dumb and assume that the high voter turnout was because of all the discussion regarding reform of SVP. Thanks for this opportunity, I'm really looking forward to being a part of the community. Congratulations Dave! Welcome :-)
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 04:33:09 Loui Chang wrote: Yeah, I don't have any better suggestion really, and apart from my general dislike for using whitespace to provide meaning (a la python) it's pretty clear to me. I do like to separate words by a space and paragraphs by a blank line. It makes text easier to read and understand. ;) touché :-)
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:51:52 Kaiting Chen wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote: As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki page so we can stop doing massive amounts of scrolling... --Kaiting. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bylaw_Amendment Done, Xyne's latest version can be found at above. Nice, thanks Kaitling. I also added my line about requiring a yes/no answer, hope that's okay. I know this might seem pedantic, but I've been in situations where this wasn't specified and suddenly a proposal had like 5 options and the voting system broke. In effect, without this we rely only on the technical capabilities of the system (under the control of a few people) and I think it's better to rely on rules instead (under the control of all of us). We can always amend again if the need for multiple choice proposals arises. While reading this, one more small thing came to mind: I wonder if we should make it clear that though *the same* proposal requires a waiting period, slightly different ones don't. An example of this might be the approval of these very byelaws, where if they are voted down, a subsequent proposal might be different by just a few words. We should probably be clear about that. So I've added: Proposals that are similar to the rejected proposal but substantively different do not require a waiting period before being presented. to the end of the waiting period paragraph. Feel free to amend for wording :-) I also think we should also tighten up the Addition of a TU wording, but will write about that separately. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] TU application - Kyle Keen
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 21:44:46 keenerd wrote: After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble. I agree with the others - please reconsider withdrawing. I believe that we could certainly do with someone with your keenness and skills on the team. I think that if we can all have a mature discussion about this and learn from it, then I'd welcome you on board. This has raised an interesting point though - perhaps we should also agree some sort of guidance for large actions that are likely to affect lots of users (like with this bot), that requrie a proposal and a vote etc. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 12:04:22 Ronald van Haren wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis ple...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: While reading this, one more small thing came to mind: I wonder if we should make it clear that though *the same* proposal requires a waiting period, slightly different ones don't. An example of this might be the approval of these very byelaws, where if they are voted down, a subsequent proposal might be different by just a few words. We should probably be clear about that. So I've added: Proposals that are similar to the rejected proposal but substantively different do not require a waiting period before being presented. to the end of the waiting period paragraph. and who determines if there is a substantial difference between the two votes (I'm talking about edge cases here)? And what exactly is this substantial difference that is required, how do we quantify it? Indeed, there are always these questions :-) And maybe this isn't clear, but substantive is a little different from substantial. It basically means that there needs to be a difference of value between the two proposals. I.e. the implication of accepting the second rather than the first would be, at least in some small way, different. That's my feeling, anyway. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 13:34:53 Ronald van Haren wrote: and who determines if there is a substantial difference between the two votes (I'm talking about edge cases here)? And what exactly is this substantial difference that is required, how do we quantify it? Indeed, there are always these questions :-) And maybe this isn't clear, but substantive is a little different from substantial. It basically means that there needs to be a difference of value between the two proposals. I.e. the implication of accepting the second rather than the first would be, at least in some small way, different. That's my feeling, anyway. I'm not a native speaker, but I always thought they could be used interchangeably. Actually most of the on-line dictionaries don't give a clear answer about the difference. Either way, we should probably try to use a different wording if the purpose is to make the document more understandable. Sure - I'm all for easily understandable, as long as we're also precise :-) I suppose what I'm after is that the effect of the two proposals must be in some way different. It's not enough just to reword the same thing. So how about: A rejected proposal may not be presented again before a waiting period has passed. The duration of the waiting period shall be 3 full months UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. The waiting period begins at the end of the voting period. A proposal which is similar to the rejected proposal, but whose effect is in any way different is considered a different proposal, and therefore does not require a waiting period before being presented. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 15:23:01 Xyne wrote: I think the passage concerning similar proposals is too vague. There is no way to define those terms in a way that is unambiguous in all cases and trying to do so is futile and condemned to a pedantic spiral. I trust the human factor to handle those cases. People will be able to determine whether it's the same proposal or not. Okay, I don't intend to push this. I just think it would be nice to avoid any ambiguity where someone says that we have to wait 3 months e.g. to amend quorum, since a proposal to do that just failed, even though the second proposal might be slightly different. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendmentoldid=124479 I'm happy with that. Want to propose it then? Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Thursday 09 December 2010 00:42:20 Loui Chang wrote: I've removed that passage, changed bylaws to by-laws, and changed YES / NO to YES or NO. I would prefer the non hyphenated spelling. *shrug* :-) ...and every time I've come across the word it's had an e in it: byelaw. *double shrug* Actually, a little light Googling shows most of the hits for byelaw being in the UK but most of the hits for bylaw being in Canada. So, I guess it depends which way you hang. Aren't words wonderful things? ;-)
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Thursday 09 December 2010 00:45:33 Loui Chang wrote: On Wed 08 Dec 2010 11:59 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Let's wait another day to get some more comments and incorporate any last changes. If it changes during the discussion period without unanimous consent then we would end up in a grey area when deciding which version to vote on (and we're limited by YES/NO proposals... haha). Also if we are putting stuff like five day discussion section, seven day voting period, 66% quorum in the Standard Voting Procedure section, are we going to remove the redundant information in the other sections? As it stands now every section says 66% quorum. --Kaiting. I would leave them period, but definitely leave them for at least another amendment. Indeed. In most of the democratic organisations I've worked with, we'd usually agree one thing we wanted to change, then take a look afterwards to see how / if this impacted on other things, and change them to be consistent if needed. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] Some packages moved from extra/community to aur
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 12:30:35 Seblu wrote: 2010/12/7 Cédric Girard girard.ced...@gmail.com: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Michael Trunner mich...@trunner.de wrote: Well, it's really simple. As autofs already have 10 votes, you just need to apply to become a TU and you will be able to move it to [community] and maintain it This is not so simple. If i wanna be a TU, this need a long time before to be enough famous in arch community to make an application. I think Cédric's suggestion isn't daft at all. TUs really should be people who have a good experience of using Arch Linux and have the neccesary skills to build and maintain packages. It's not at all about being famous, IMO. (I hardly think I was, nor am I now!) Seriously, if you or anyone else is interested in there being certain packages in [community] (and they fulfill the requirements) and you have the skills, please do apply :-) We said a while back, I think, that we'd rather have more TUs maintaining reasonable numbers of packages, and packages that they use, than a small number of TUs with too much on their plates. Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
Hey, On Tuesday 07 December 2010 15:37:41 Xyne wrote: I've rewritten that section with some changes (see below). I've tried to keep the wording unambiguous and relatively simple. Note the following functional changes: * If 50% or more of all active TUs vote NO then the vote is rejected even in the absence of quorum. This is logically coherent with accepting the vote when more than 50% vote YES in the absence of quorum. * Default durations for various items such as discussion periods and voting periods. I think this is really helpful. A few more thoughts interleaved below, including a suggestion on the normally point. I'm not sure about the wording of ... shall normally be ... but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. and similar passages. The intention is to enable other sections of the bylaws and nothing else to supersede the defaults. For example the TU removal procedure allows for shorter discussion and voting periods. The section thus provides the standard template for voting that can be tweaked by other sections as necessary. The tricky bit is wording it in such a way that the person making the proposal can't arbitrarily change them. SVP SECTION: Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs. SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition of a TU or an amendment to the bylaws. The proposal should be clear and concise and it must be posted on the aur-general mailing list (aur-general). Do we require that a proposal has only yes and no as options, as well as abstain? Could a proposal present a list of options? How would this affect the voting, or should it not be allowed? (If not, I think we should state explicitly what is [only] allowed.) The discussion period begins when the proposal is posted on aur-general. The duration of the discussion period shall normally be 5 days but may be I'd suggest 5 full days rather than just 5 days, for the removal of any potential ambiguity. determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. All discussion shall take place on aur-general. During the discussion period, votes shall not be cast. I'm not quite sure what all discussion shall... means. Does it mean that discussion outside of aur-general is forbidden, not allowed as evidence in a court, etc.? What's the purpose of this line? The voting period begins when the discussion period ends. The duration of the voting period shall normally be 7 days but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. In answer to your normally point, perhaps: The duration of the voting period shall be 7 days unless determined otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described elsewhere in the bylaws. During the voting period, TUs may vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN. Votes shall be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage. At the end of the voting period, all votes shall be tallied. In the context of SVP, TUs are considered active if they are marked as active when the voting period ends. Quorum shall normally be 66% of all active TUs, with participation measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. again, perhaps just make it a little tighter like above: Quorum shall be 66% of all active TUs, with participation measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, unless determined otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described elsewhere in the bylaws. The proposal is normally accepted if EITHER the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs OR quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes but these conditions may be superseded by other sections of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. Same thing, perhaps replace is normally accepted... ...but these conditions may be superseded with is accepted... ...unless these conditions are superseded. The proposal is normally rejected if EITHER more than half of all active TUs have voted NO OR quorum was established and the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of YES votes but these conditions may be superseded by other sections of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. Same thing. A rejected proposal may not be presented again before a waiting period has passed. The duration of the waiting period shall normally be 3 months but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. The waiting period begins at the end of the voting period. Same thing. If quorum is not established by the end of the voting period then the proposal is neither accepted nor rejected. A second SVP shall begin to establish the status of the proposal. If the
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:44:36 Xyne wrote: Peter Lewis wrote: Do we require that a proposal has only yes and no as options, as well as abstain? Could a proposal present a list of options? How would this affect the voting, or should it not be allowed? (If not, I think we should state explicitly what is [only] allowed.) For now those are the only options available on the interface, so we don't need to consider anything else. I agree. Let's say so then in the byelaws. Eventually Standard Voting Procedure could be changed to Simple Voting Procedure and another procedure could be introduced for anything beyond an accept/reject motion. Indeed :-) In answer to your normally point, perhaps: The duration of the voting period shall be 7 days unless determined otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described elsewhere in the bylaws. I tried to find a natural-sounding formulation using unless too but couldn't. I think it's because I already had ... nature of the proposal... in my head. I agree with the use of unless but not the proposed statement. I've used UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. in the updated version below. Good stuff. Oops, I just saw you replied again... will reply to that...
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:58:49 Xyne wrote: Third version: Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs. SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition of a TU or an amendment to the bylaws. The proposal should be clear and concise and it must be posted on the aur-general mailing list (aur-general). So I'd just suggest also adding: The proposal must also be worded unambiguously, and such that a YES / NO answer may be given. Looks good to me though :-) Pete.
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
Hang on, I just went through this again: On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:58:49 Xyne wrote: Third version: Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs. SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition of a TU or an amendment to the bylaws. The proposal should be clear and concise and it must be posted on the aur-general mailing list (aur-general). The discussion period begins when the proposal is posted on aur-general. The duration of the discussion period shall be 5 full days UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. Official discussion shall take place on aur-general. During the discussion period, votes shall not be cast. The voting period begins when the discussion period ends. The duration of the voting period shall be 7 full days UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. During the voting period, TUs may vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN. Votes shall be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage. At the end of the voting period, all votes shall be tallied. In the context of SVP, TUs are considered active if they are marked as active when the voting period ends. Quorum shall be 66% of all active TUs and participation shall be measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. The proposal is accepted if EITHER A) the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs OR B) quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. This means that we cannot override (A) in the rest of the byelaws. I can imagine that we might want to create something requiring (say) a 2/3rds majority for some type of serious proposal at some point... How about: The proposal is accepted if EITHER: A) the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs, OR B) quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes; UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. or something similar? The proposal is rejected if EITHER A) the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of active TUs have voted NO OR B) quorum was established and the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of YES votes UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. Same here. Just more thoughts, trying to spot loopholes, etc... :-)
Re: [aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 19:02:59 Xyne wrote: Peter Lewis wrote: This means that we cannot override (A) in the rest of the byelaws. I can imagine that we might want to create something requiring (say) a 2/3rds majority for some type of serious proposal at some point... How about: /snip Just more thoughts, trying to spot loopholes, etc... :-) The formatting got mangled. The format was The proposal is foo if EITHER A) condition 1 OR B) condition 2 UNLESS some other condition The indentation should make it clear that the EITHER and UNLESS wrap the two choices. If you have a better idea of how to insert parentheses then let me know. Ah, thought so :-) Here's version 3 again without wrapping, hopefully: Nice. Yeah, I don't have any better suggestion really, and apart from my general dislike for using whitespace to provide meaning (a la python) it's pretty clear to me. Actually... how about switching the sentence around somewhat: UNLESS some other condition, the proposal is foo if EITHER A) condition 1 OR B) condition 2 is that clearer? So my only other suggestion would be that in my other post, about proposals having to have yes/no answers. Also - and this is a wider point - who should be allowed to make proposals? Only TUs, I presume... (maybe technical details just make this a moot point anyway). Pete.
Re: [aur-general] meaning of abstain
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 20:53:40 Kaiting Chen wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Töpper atsut...@freethoughts.dewrote: ... I'm stuck between an Abstain and a No and I guess some other TUs are also thinking about how they should handle this... You can stop being stuck; with the current bylaws Abstain and No are functionally identical. Just out of interest - has a circumstance occured as yet where a difference in understanding of the concept of abstain would have affected the outcome? If so, what happened?
Re: [aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?
On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote: On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +, Peter Lewis wrote: I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car problems, etc. doesn't really apply (though a reasonable equivalent might be that someone's Internet connection goes down for a few days without warning.) It seems to me that if we are to basically expect that all TUs engage in all votes, then the assumption is that a fully constituted vote is everyone, not 66%. Therefore, a majority should be counted as a majority of all TUs, not just of those voting. We'd have to ensure though, I think, that a TU that didn't vote on more than n (consecutive?) occasions (possibly with the addition of them not giving a reason for this) triggers a removal process automatically. But, I'd be a little hesitant about having more complex quorum rules (i.e. exactly as Chris suggested). We should probably either get rid of it (in favour of the above higher expectation of participation) or else leave it as it is. Well, we don't need to get rid of quorum. We can just raise the needed quorum for the different type of motions which may achieve a better balance. Yeah, that's fine, I don't feel strongly about how we implement quorum, I just think it should be consistent and encourage everyone to vote. Incidentally, what did you mean by achieve a better balance? I also replied to this before seeing the other thread... will head over there now... whistles
Re: [aur-general] orphan request
On Thursday 02 December 2010 12:07:59 Kaiting Chen wrote: As a general policy we wait a week before orphaning after you have contacted the maintainer expressing your desire to adopt to package. At least two weeks would be my minimum. It's perfectly possible that someone is just on holiday / vacation. It wouldn't be nice to come back and find all your lovingly crafted PKGBUILDs taken off your hands! Pete.
Re: [aur-general] orphan request
On Thursday 02 December 2010 12:56:37 Ray Rashif wrote: On 2 December 2010 20:48, Peter Lewis ple...@aur.archlinux.org wrote: On Thursday 02 December 2010 12:07:59 Kaiting Chen wrote: As a general policy we wait a week before orphaning after you have contacted the maintainer expressing your desire to adopt to package. At least two weeks would be my minimum. It's perfectly possible that someone is just on holiday / vacation. It wouldn't be nice to come back and find all your lovingly crafted PKGBUILDs taken off your hands! No need. A week is sufficient for packages that have been marked out-of-date for so long. Yeah agreed. I just think that as a general rule we need to allow for more than a week from the first notification. But as you say, if the package has long been marked out-of-date, then that's obviously what the whole flagging system is for! :-) Pete.
