Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/9 Peter Lewis > 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. > Well this really all depends on the license. But out of courtesy I don't think it is appropriate to remove the names of contributors. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
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] Moving packages to Community
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.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
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)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
> Not that I wouldn't mind the credit but it was Lukas Fleischer who > implemented the official repo checking code and not me. He is also > hosting the git repository for his branch of the AUR. Oops, yeah, I saw this too at some point. > Your idea sort of sounds like "retiring" a package to me. That seems > like an interesting idea but I am not sure the benefits are worth the > work involved. The benefits that I can see are: Well, a "retired" AUR package isn't much retiring in my notion, but more active than ever before, due to the fact that it is officially part of Archlinux at that point. The thing is that the intention behind this is to basically insert a cheery error page that would iron out the complaints from AUR maintainers that seem to come up frequently. It would improve the communication with TUs when there's a mailto address to the guy displayed, which does the package now. > + keeping a backup of the source package (for whom? are they that valuable?) > + keeping a backup of the comments, which hardly anyone can see (the > original author? TUs?) > - what sort of design on the web could be used to show old retired > package comments? you can't hide a package and show its comments. who > is the end-user for old musty comments anyways? The backup of the source package is unnecessary, as well as the comments to the point, that maybe said maintainer wants to look at it for a last time. So that could be, like some static you-might-be-looking-for-this-data-but-probably-not kind of way. Nice to have, no must-have, anyways. Just for the sake that I did read ppl complaining about that as well... > Just to be specific, a TU clicks the "Retire" button on a package to > retire it. A retired package is hidden from the general user. Only the > original author can see it. I suppose TU or devs could see it as well, > in a special swanky section of the site. Problems I brainstormed: > - what happens if the original author disowns his invisible retired > package? does he lose it never to found again? would anyone care? There should no more be a way to disown that package. The intention is really just a bite more than the "database entry not found" surprise people now have. The only thing that can be done by that former owner and only that former owner is to approve, and when approved, it's going to be deleted. > Anyways there you go. If I were the one expected to spend time > programming this (for free) I would say that it's not worth the > effort. That's more nicely said than unsubscribing this list, but you would remember by the fifth time this flame awakes as a zombie... :-D Let's see... cheers! mar77i
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Not that I wouldn't mind the credit but it was Lukas Fleischer who implemented the official repo checking code and not me. He is also hosting the git repository for his branch of the AUR. Your idea sort of sounds like "retiring" a package to me. That seems like an interesting idea but I am not sure the benefits are worth the work involved. The benefits that I can see are: + keeping a backup of the source package (for whom? are they that valuable?) + keeping a backup of the comments, which hardly anyone can see (the original author? TUs?) Just to be specific, a TU clicks the "Retire" button on a package to retire it. A retired package is hidden from the general user. Only the original author can see it. I suppose TU or devs could see it as well, in a special swanky section of the site. Problems I brainstormed: - what happens if the original author disowns his invisible retired package? does he lose it never to found again? would anyone care? - what sort of design on the web could be used to show old retired package comments? you can't hide a package and show its comments. who is the end-user for old musty comments anyways? Anyways there you go. If I were the one expected to spend time programming this (for free) I would say that it's not worth the effort. -- -Justin
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 8 February 2011 03:23, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > Side note: > Although TUs are a great bunch, I don't think that's the main reason > why people use the AUR. :) As much as I'd like for this thread to die, because the main issue was settled very many replies ago (we all agree that it's bad and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again), I'd also like to stress the fact that often times discussions veer off-topic and change in tone due to a cultural and language barrier. So, chill out :)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: > Angel, > > If AUR is a sucessgul project, it is not because of this kind of > language you use. Be friendly to your fellow Arch friends. I'm sure > that if the other TU would share this language, another project > similar to AUR would pop up elsewhere. > Side note: Although TUs are a great bunch, I don't think that's the main reason why people use the AUR. :)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Monday 07 February 2011 17:12:03 Ángel Velásquez wrote: > Ok please somebody bring a toy for the kid. > > I've repeated on *this* thread (several times) that a `courtesy note` > is in the most cases sent when a package is moved to binary form on > our official repos, and this should be enough, we aren't forced when > we do this, we really write you the note, we put every word on it, I > swear I can show you some that I've sent, but you cannot be irritated > if I DON'T do it, that's my unique point, but no problem, I don't > think I will adopt a package from a guy who is expecting a picture on > the aur frontpage like "packager of the year", I swear that if I see > that the package belongs of some of the whiners, I will do the package > from the scratch :-). > > Talking about the courtesy, you can't ask for courtesy being harsh, is > .. paradogic. And I am not making non-arguments, I am talking about > the exigences of you as users to us (developers and trusted users) and > the fact that you're getting packages from us, and I don't see notes > of courtesy ? or did you sent notes of courtesy to one of our devs?, > now we feel emo 'cause you the users uses our packages and we don't > receive at least a note of courtesy, this is ridiculous as your > request. Angel, you're my president. And with this last message I unsubscribe myself from aur-general too. -- Andrea
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Angel, If AUR is a sucessgul project, it is not because of this kind of language you use. Be friendly to your fellow Arch friends. I'm sure that if the other TU would share this language, another project similar to AUR would pop up elsewhere.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Ok, some of the messages from this thread started to became offtopic. Here is my 2 cents and consider this being my last message. We always had an unspoken rule about sending a "thank you" note but we are all humans and forgot. Have my word that I spoke with the members that forgot and this would not happen again. They are new and untrained and lets forgive them this time :) -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear : > On Monday, February 07, 2011 12:22:41 Ángel Velásquez wrote: >> 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear : >> > On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote: >> >> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 : >> >> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an >> >> > ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your >> >> > respect to the author by a polite question? After all we are people, >> >> > not mindless machines nor animals. >> >> >> >> Hi Nicky, >> >> >> >> This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those >> >> "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many >> >> of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why >> >> people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs >> >> containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. >> > >> > They're still packages, whether they contain actual binaries or source >> > code is irrelevent. What do you think tarballs are? The ONLY difference >> > is in how the packages are installed. >> >> As I aurballs and pkgs are different, even for harder you try to seems >> equals is not the same. > > They're not that different. They still result in a package managed by things > liek pacman. The only difference is they're built from source. Same goes for > anythign in the ABS. > >> >> > Also, open source does not mean "no credit" or "courtesy free." All he's >> > asking is to be told when the PKGBUILD he is maintaining is taken over >> > and moved to [community]. I personally would enjoy being asked >> > permission first as well. >> >> Forget about permission, a PKGBUILD isn't your daughter and moving to >> community doesn't mean marry her, so, get off that cloud, I can notice >> you that I TU or Developer will move your package to community / >> extra, that's courtesy, but I don't and I won't expect you to give me >> any kind of authorization, is that clear for you? > > Except your attitude seems to be against any form of courtesy or communication > with the community at all. I don't give two shits if you're a TU, if you move > my PKGBUILD to [community] without telling me, I *will* be pissed off. > >> >> >> As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of >> >> whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD >> >> but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we >> >> are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that >> >> your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too >> >> (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). >> > >> > So if you're maintaining a bunch of PKGBUILDs on the AUR and, say, >> > hypothetically, that I, if I were a TU, were to move every single one of >> > your packages effectively to [community] without typing a word to you >> > about it, you won't get mad that suddenly you don't get any >> > consideration? No, names in PKGBUILDs is NOT enough, as many people DO >> > use AUR helpers and never even see the PKGBUILDs they are working with. >> > Also, his point isn't recognition, but COURTESY. >> >> That happened to me and I didn't whine, that works for me when I >> applied to be a TU, and plus, if you want to be famous doing packages, >> find other place where the devs get payed, I guess you use pacman or >> any helper to install your packages and you aren't doing pacman -Qi >> for every package that you installed for free and I guess you also >> doesn't send a note of `courtesy` congratulating the maintainer for >> his work, so WHY if you install stuff without permission (which is the >> sane thing) why you pretend a Dev or TU should ask you for anything?, >> many of TU or Devs started like you or the rest (me including), >> maintaining stuff on AUR then applied to be a TU, and nobody of us >> pretended to ask for permission, that is beurocracy, what if you don't >> want to give me the maintainership of a PKGBUILD and I want to put it >> into binaries repos, users will be affected (downloading sources + >> compiling) just because you're selfish, and is `YOUR PACKAGE` so hell >> no, as long we publish the sources of our packages and users can do >> everything they want with it (add flags, remove patches, etc) we can >> do the same with the users contributions, we are developers, and users >> too. >> > > Again, you seem to hang on the "fame" thing. That wasn't his point. His point > was someone moved his stuff into [commnity] without telling him. Get off the > fame thing. He's not arguing for fame, I am not arguing for fame, and you're > trying to get off the actual point, which you're not making a good argument > against. > >> >> We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do >> >> will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend >> >> that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS >> >> MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it >> >> from scratch
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Monday, February 07, 2011 12:22:41 Ángel Velásquez wrote: > 2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear : > > On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote: > >> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 : > >> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an > >> > ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your > >> > respect to the author by a polite question? After all we are people, > >> > not mindless machines nor animals. > >> > >> Hi Nicky, > >> > >> This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those > >> "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many > >> of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why > >> people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs > >> containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. > > > > They're still packages, whether they contain actual binaries or source > > code is irrelevent. What do you think tarballs are? The ONLY difference > > is in how the packages are installed. > > As I aurballs and pkgs are different, even for harder you try to seems > equals is not the same. They're not that different. They still result in a package managed by things liek pacman. The only difference is they're built from source. Same goes for anythign in the ABS. > > > Also, open source does not mean "no credit" or "courtesy free." All he's > > asking is to be told when the PKGBUILD he is maintaining is taken over > > and moved to [community]. I personally would enjoy being asked > > permission first as well. > > Forget about permission, a PKGBUILD isn't your daughter and moving to > community doesn't mean marry her, so, get off that cloud, I can notice > you that I TU or Developer will move your package to community / > extra, that's courtesy, but I don't and I won't expect you to give me > any kind of authorization, is that clear for you? Except your attitude seems to be against any form of courtesy or communication with the community at all. I don't give two shits if you're a TU, if you move my PKGBUILD to [community] without telling me, I *will* be pissed off. > > >> As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of > >> whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD > >> but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we > >> are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that > >> your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too > >> (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). > > > > So if you're maintaining a bunch of PKGBUILDs on the AUR and, say, > > hypothetically, that I, if I were a TU, were to move every single one of > > your packages effectively to [community] without typing a word to you > > about it, you won't get mad that suddenly you don't get any > > consideration? No, names in PKGBUILDs is NOT enough, as many people DO > > use AUR helpers and never even see the PKGBUILDs they are working with. > > Also, his point isn't recognition, but COURTESY. > > That happened to me and I didn't whine, that works for me when I > applied to be a TU, and plus, if you want to be famous doing packages, > find other place where the devs get payed, I guess you use pacman or > any helper to install your packages and you aren't doing pacman -Qi > for every package that you installed for free and I guess you also > doesn't send a note of `courtesy` congratulating the maintainer for > his work, so WHY if you install stuff without permission (which is the > sane thing) why you pretend a Dev or TU should ask you for anything?, > many of TU or Devs started like you or the rest (me including), > maintaining stuff on AUR then applied to be a TU, and nobody of us > pretended to ask for permission, that is beurocracy, what if you don't > want to give me the maintainership of a PKGBUILD and I want to put it > into binaries repos, users will be affected (downloading sources + > compiling) just because you're selfish, and is `YOUR PACKAGE` so hell > no, as long we publish the sources of our packages and users can do > everything they want with it (add flags, remove patches, etc) we can > do the same with the users contributions, we are developers, and users > too. > Again, you seem to hang on the "fame" thing. That wasn't his point. His point was someone moved his stuff into [commnity] without telling him. Get off the fame thing. He's not arguing for fame, I am not arguing for fame, and you're trying to get off the actual point, which you're not making a good argument against. > >> We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > >> will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > >> that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS > >> MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > >> from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > >> "please pay me" .. so hell no. > > > > Why i
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/7 Yaro Kasear : > On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote: >> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 : >> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, >> > but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the >> > author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless >> > machines nor animals. >> >> Hi Nicky, >> >> This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those >> "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many >> of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why >> people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs >> containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. > > They're still packages, whether they contain actual binaries or source code is > irrelevent. What do you think tarballs are? The ONLY difference is in how the > packages are installed. As I aurballs and pkgs are different, even for harder you try to seems equals is not the same. > > Also, open source does not mean "no credit" or "courtesy free." All he's > asking is to be told when the PKGBUILD he is maintaining is taken over and > moved to [community]. I personally would enjoy being asked permission first as > well. > Forget about permission, a PKGBUILD isn't your daughter and moving to community doesn't mean marry her, so, get off that cloud, I can notice you that I TU or Developer will move your package to community / extra, that's courtesy, but I don't and I won't expect you to give me any kind of authorization, is that clear for you? >> >> As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of >> whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD >> but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we >> are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that >> your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too >> (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). >> > > So if you're maintaining a bunch of PKGBUILDs on the AUR and, say, > hypothetically, that I, if I were a TU, were to move every single one of your > packages effectively to [community] without typing a word to you about it, you > won't get mad that suddenly you don't get any consideration? No, names in > PKGBUILDs is NOT enough, as many people DO use AUR helpers and never even see > the PKGBUILDs they are working with. Also, his point isn't recognition, but > COURTESY. > That happened to me and I didn't whine, that works for me when I applied to be a TU, and plus, if you want to be famous doing packages, find other place where the devs get payed, I guess you use pacman or any helper to install your packages and you aren't doing pacman -Qi for every package that you installed for free and I guess you also doesn't send a note of `courtesy` congratulating the maintainer for his work, so WHY if you install stuff without permission (which is the sane thing) why you pretend a Dev or TU should ask you for anything?, many of TU or Devs started like you or the rest (me including), maintaining stuff on AUR then applied to be a TU, and nobody of us pretended to ask for permission, that is beurocracy, what if you don't want to give me the maintainership of a PKGBUILD and I want to put it into binaries repos, users will be affected (downloading sources + compiling) just because you're selfish, and is `YOUR PACKAGE` so hell no, as long we publish the sources of our packages and users can do everything they want with it (add flags, remove patches, etc) we can do the same with the users contributions, we are developers, and users too. >> We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do >> will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend >> that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS >> MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it >> from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be >> "please pay me" .. so hell no. >> > > Why is it madness to show someone courtesy and some consideration for being > the maintainer of the PKGBUILD? No, it's madness to be an asshole to the > maintainer of the PKGBUILD and not even give thought to TELLING them their > package is now in [community]. The madness is to pretend to I as a TU or Dev have to ask your permission, as I said before, a PKGBUILD is not your daughter and I am not asking to marry with, so I don't have to ask you permission for anything, or you've asked devs or tu permission for anything in any moment? As I said, telling him that a package is hitting a binary repo is fine, but forget about permission stuff, right?, Or did you adopted a package and contacted the last maintainer asking his permission? > > Whether someone "owns" the PKGBUILD is quite irrelevant. A LOT of maintainers > put their heart and soul into making sure those PKGBUILDs actually work on > more than their own computers. TUs don'
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote: > 2011/2/5 Nicky726 : > > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, > > but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the > > author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless > > machines nor animals. > > Hi Nicky, > > This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those > "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many > of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why > people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs > containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. They're still packages, whether they contain actual binaries or source code is irrelevent. What do you think tarballs are? The ONLY difference is in how the packages are installed. Also, open source does not mean "no credit" or "courtesy free." All he's asking is to be told when the PKGBUILD he is maintaining is taken over and moved to [community]. I personally would enjoy being asked permission first as well. > > As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of > whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD > but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we > are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that > your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too > (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). > So if you're maintaining a bunch of PKGBUILDs on the AUR and, say, hypothetically, that I, if I were a TU, were to move every single one of your packages effectively to [community] without typing a word to you about it, you won't get mad that suddenly you don't get any consideration? No, names in PKGBUILDs is NOT enough, as many people DO use AUR helpers and never even see the PKGBUILDs they are working with. Also, his point isn't recognition, but COURTESY. > We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS > MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > "please pay me" .. so hell no. > Why is it madness to show someone courtesy and some consideration for being the maintainer of the PKGBUILD? No, it's madness to be an asshole to the maintainer of the PKGBUILD and not even give thought to TELLING them their package is now in [community]. Whether someone "owns" the PKGBUILD is quite irrelevant. A LOT of maintainers put their heart and soul into making sure those PKGBUILDs actually work on more than their own computers. TUs don't "own" those packages either, and they really should be at least NOTIFYING the maintainer of the acquisition. So hell yes, there should at least be a notification. If it inconveniences you, then you should not be a TU. > EOF Wow, your attitude toward AUR package maintainers makes me wanna put PKGBUILDs on my own site instead of the AUR. There I can DEFINITEY "own" PKGBUILDs if I want to, but further, I'd be able to keep people with your hostile attitude away from my own maintainership. The only downside is my package will not be part of any official repository that way, and who would that help?
[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hello official and inofficial maintainers and AUR devs.
Following the discussion in aur-general, I think some automation could
solve many issues at once here. Justin Davis' community-blacklist
patch is an approach in about the right direction although in
relation to the discussion concerning these prevailing [more-official
repo] adoption issues, it seems that it does not yet go far enough at
the moment. There should be a redirection or at least a
[we're-now-official] error page showing sort of "congratulations and
sorry for the late notice" to the yet uninformed aur maintainer, if
his package is not reachable any more because it was adopted in said
[more-official repo] - along with this could be displayed the comments
of the former package. As well, it could just become invisible in the
package's search, and marked with a "I saw this" button in the former
AUR maintainer's package list. When that button is clicked, the
package would sink quietly into the official repo without anyone
needing to complain.
The only hurdle remaining is, that a package isn't up for deletion any
more when it gets adopted to [more-official repo], because that could
just be automated by the repo's backend maybe? I'm probably going to
download the aur source inclusively Justin's approach to look into
this a bit further. Even though my development skills aren't exactly
in line with such a task, and if someone feels more confident, one may
look into it h{im,er}self.
I'd like to hear your comments on this well.
cheers!
mar77i
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I maintain a few PKGBUILDs on AUR, including one that has a considerable amount of votes [1]. It would be awesome to have any package that I maintain moved to [community], it doesn't matter if the TU asked me or not, but this is a personal opinion. Nevertheless, it is certainly polite to write a comment notifying that the TU is going to move the package, not to mention useful, since (I assume that) many people that use a given package would also be notified by e-mail that the package is being moved. Just for the record, I agree that it should be put in the guidelines. I think that the main argument in favor of it is that it is not only polite but convenient for those who want to keep track of the packages one is using. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10227 -- Rafael Beraldo http://devio.us/~rberaldo/
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Ángel Velásquez wrote: > We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS > MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > "please pay me" .. so hell no. See Eric Waller's post and my reply to it. Submitters might be the legal owners of PKGBUILDs, however insane that may be. The AUR does not clearly indicate that submitted aurballs must be licensed permissively.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I'll just add here that I used to use moving packages to [community] as a TU recruitment ground. If the package I wanted to move to [community] was obviously well maintained, I usually offered to sponsor the maintainer to be a TU when I let them know I was going to move their package. I think there are still a couple of TUs here that got brought on that way. Allan
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I always send the maintainer a 'thank you' afterwards telling them that I've moved their package to [community] and asking them if they have any specific advise about the package. My personal opinion is that it is not necessary to ask beforehand when moving a package simply because in my experience it can take quite a long time to receive a response for such matters. But I think that not giving any indication to the maintainer of an AUR package that you have moved it is rather rude and not conducive to the general idea of the community. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > I apologize for taking your package without emailing or notifiying you and > more I feel bad for not replying to your email. And now i am ashamed on the > mailing list, > > I won't forget to mail the next time I adopt packages and move them to > [community]. > Let me just point out that in this case the Gmail Labs feature 'Canned Responses' is incredibly useful. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I have contributed a few PKGBUILDs to AUR. I do it because I enjoy it -- all I ask is for is recognition. Yes, this is an open source project and it is implicit that the work can and (hopefully) be adopted and improved. But recognition of each person who contributed should be maintained. I am not a lawyer and I generally tune out all license flame wars. That said, PKGBUILDS generally do not contain copyright or license declarations. Unless I am mistaken, that means someone who comes into possession of a PKGBUILD does not have the right to republish it. As a minimum, I think Arch should get a nod from the creator of a PKGBUILD prior to absorbing it into the colective -- It might help avoid any misunderstandings. Oh, and I would be honored to have one of my PKGBUILDs graduate to a more general release. Eric Waller
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 06:01, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > I don't think that Hilton was trolling you Maxime, just poking a little fun > at Jelle. He was so engrossed with moving a package (think about the excitement he must have had) that he forgot about the formalities involved.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 03:35, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > I moved a lot of packages from AUR in community/extra and every time i did > sent a "thank you" note. From that amount of messages i sent, only once i > got a reply. ONCE. > > Should i be dissapointed? I guess yes. I am? No. No need. The first comment from you about moving already counts as closure. What I do is allow for a grace period before (1) uploading the package to repo and (2) deleting the package from AUR. I notify (via comments) at least a day before uploading, and delete the package a day after uploading. So that's a three-day process. Now, I just remembered a good example where we appear to have not bothered with adopting a package into the repositories: q7z [1] But really, the AUR maintainer can keep working on the PKGBUILD even if someone brings it in. The difference is you don't submit the PKGBUILD - you send an e-mail with it attached. And while we like to joke about making Arch greater and/or kicking butts, there isn't really anything of that sort. We just help each other out to fulfill our needs, and the distribution grows along with us. Humbly. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12822
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi Angel, > This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those > "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many > of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why > people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs > containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. I feared the "authorship" word may get too much of attention. Its a sad result of ugly missuse of todays. The authorship I meant -- and sorry for not making myself clear the first time -- is a relation of one who creates to the thing created, or of all who create that is too. No licence fees, nor revenues, nor copyright needed, nor asked for. Just simple A (+ B) created this PKGBUILD/package -- the difference now is unimportant. > As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of > whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD > but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we > are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that > your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too > (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). I also think that keeping the contributor tag is right. And I also am happy when my PKGBUILD gets promoted to repo. Though I'd be happier if I heard from the TU first (than finding out some day accidentaly that the PKGBUILD is not in the AUR anymore but now in the [community] as mentioned somewhere here). It is not as much of my own happiness -- though it motivates one if he hears it from the TU not just finds out accidentaly -- as also of bothsides politeness. > We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do > will move your package, Now with this I would be maximaly fine. > but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend > that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` I guess I see your point. This is too strong. Though there should be some kind of inner `I have to ask him` comming from one's human politenes. Like `I want to move foo to community, is it ok with you? By the way good job maintaining it.` Most of the time the answer would be `yes` of course, but this motivates one to contribute. And sometimes one would answer `I am planning to become TU soon and would like to maintain this, so would you wait with the adoption till my becoming TU is resolved?` Now that does motivate too, doesn't it? > <--- THIS IS > MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it > from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be > "please pay me" .. so hell no. For myself I contribute to Arch because I feel in a way obliged to, as it is a great distro which gave me much. So I hope stuff I put into AUR makes Arch better and help others. I want no money for it, just polite human comunication of what is going on. By the way, thanx for baring with me, Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Maxime Wack wrote: > Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Hilton Medeiros a écrit : > > > >> Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty >> thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! >> >> From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. >> >> > Wow, I didn't expect to be trolled on aur-general… > Let's just shorten everything to one question : what is a community > without communication ? > > I don't think that Hilton was trolling you Maxime, just poking a little fun at Jelle.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Le -10/01/-28163 20:59, Hilton Medeiros a écrit : Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. Wow, I didn't expect to be trolled on aur-general… Let's just shorten everything to one question : what is a community without communication ?
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : > 2011/2/6 Ángel Velásquez : >> 2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the >>> process feels a little uneasy to me. >> >> First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some >> maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like >> this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you >> contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. > > There are way too many comments to reply them all, but I do want to > take an exception on this one. > > When I say "my", that is "packages that I have been maintaining". I'm > not "owning" them, of course. There's a sense they do "belong" to > someone: you don't delete or orphan a package on anyone's request > until they made sufficient effort to contact the maintainer and fix > any issues. The original issue I wanted to bring up: if delete/orphan > needs some form of cooperation, then why moving does not? > >>> My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of >>> packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so >>> many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that >>> yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, >>> as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing >>> what I've read before). >> >> Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in >> sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install >> (PKGBUILD) experimental software. >> >>> >>> If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that >>> popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking >>> the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, >>> except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now >>> bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I >>> wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, >>> object to unilateral decisions. >>> >>> My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer >>> first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package >>> then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been >>> doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. >> >> Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the >> project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official >> repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were >> packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not >> experimental at all. > > I beg your pardon, but I don't think this is at all about what is > "good" for me (and by "me" I mean maintainers). If it was really about > the good of the maintainer, then instead of just moving, the TUs and > Devs would offer continued maintaining rights in Community for the - > apparently successful - care taker. I know that this is technically > not feasible at the moment. I believe, though, that it would be the > The Right Thing (and saying this as part of that "Arch Linux > Community", whose good you want to above all), but that's for another > time, I'm not pushing that agenda here at all. > >> I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, >> well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be >> more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said >> anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a >> package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this >> is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you >> contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but >> that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. >> >> Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now >> you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. >> > > I'm sorry again, but you don't seem to get it: I don't want anything > more in return than what you expect from me -common courtesy. > > As for the comment that only very few people write back on the TUs > notes of moving: I didn't either. Why? It's all settled already, > what's there more to say? I don't think the number of replies have any > relation to the number of people who cared. > > I'm very happy to contribute. I'm very happy to spend time fixing > packages. I'm always checking whether there are orphan packages to fix > up. I don't apply to be a TU because I never know how much time I have > and don't want to do a shabby job. But this does not mean we all > cannot work together. Everybody gets different thing from Arch, but > it's arguably a fact that what's good for me, good for you too, and > vice versa. > > Cheers, > Greg > Ok this way of explaining the things is kinda different, the first one sounded too harsh and asking for courtesy being harsh is paradogic. IMHO , you are always up to write to th
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:00:32 +0100 Maxime Wack wrote: > I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I > was maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got > aware of this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the > same as in the repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my > package on AUR anymore. Not that I particularly care about that > package, or that I didn't want it to be in [Community], in fact it's > for the best, less work for me ! But what I didn't like was that it > was done without any comment or notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm > absolutely not implying that it was MY precious package and that it > felt like stealing, or that he had to wait for my approval. It's just > that talking about a community-driven repository, the least you could > expect from any user (and even more from a *trusted* user) would be > to communicate about what he's doing, so that everything goes clear, > acknowledged and understood. After discovering this, I emailed Jelle > van der Waa (who adopted the package), on 01/21, writing : > > >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. > >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be > >assured > that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have > been nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication > practice. > > > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " > > And I didn't get any answer… Now, that is outrageous. Stealing your package is already a very nasty thing to do, but not replying to your email is unforgivable! From today onwards we shall call him: Jelle, the Soulless. -- Cheers, Hilton
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Nicky726 : > > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, but > more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the author by > a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless machines nor animals. > Hi Nicky, This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package. As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU). We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be "please pay me" .. so hell no. EOF -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/6 Ángel Velásquez : > 2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : >> Hi, >> >> Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the >> process feels a little uneasy to me. > > First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some > maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like > this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you > contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. There are way too many comments to reply them all, but I do want to take an exception on this one. When I say "my", that is "packages that I have been maintaining". I'm not "owning" them, of course. There's a sense they do "belong" to someone: you don't delete or orphan a package on anyone's request until they made sufficient effort to contact the maintainer and fix any issues. The original issue I wanted to bring up: if delete/orphan needs some form of cooperation, then why moving does not? >> My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of >> packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so >> many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that >> yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, >> as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing >> what I've read before). > > Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in > sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install > (PKGBUILD) experimental software. > >> >> If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that >> popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking >> the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, >> except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now >> bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I >> wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, >> object to unilateral decisions. >> >> My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer >> first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package >> then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been >> doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the > project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official > repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were > packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not > experimental at all. I beg your pardon, but I don't think this is at all about what is "good" for me (and by "me" I mean maintainers). If it was really about the good of the maintainer, then instead of just moving, the TUs and Devs would offer continued maintaining rights in Community for the - apparently successful - care taker. I know that this is technically not feasible at the moment. I believe, though, that it would be the The Right Thing (and saying this as part of that "Arch Linux Community", whose good you want to above all), but that's for another time, I'm not pushing that agenda here at all. > I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, > well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be > more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said > anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a > package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this > is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you > contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but > that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. > > Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now > you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. > I'm sorry again, but you don't seem to get it: I don't want anything more in return than what you expect from me -common courtesy. As for the comment that only very few people write back on the TUs notes of moving: I didn't either. Why? It's all settled already, what's there more to say? I don't think the number of replies have any relation to the number of people who cared. I'm very happy to contribute. I'm very happy to spend time fixing packages. I'm always checking whether there are orphan packages to fix up. I don't apply to be a TU because I never know how much time I have and don't want to do a shabby job. But this does not mean we all cannot work together. Everybody gets different thing from Arch, but it's arguably a fact that what's good for me, good for you too, and vice versa. Cheers, Greg
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). It is "second class" in that anybody can upload packages to it. That includes both incompetent and malicious packagers. All AUR users should be aware of the inherent dangers of using the AUR and that is at least part of the reason that no AUR helpers are allowed in the official repos. That does not mean that the AUR is a package cesspool. Many if not most packages on the AUR are indeed very good, but it does not receive the same scrutiny that the official repos receive. > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Cheers, >Greg Some of the replies so far show clear territoriality. AUR maintainers feel that packages belong to them, and TUs feel that PKGBUILDs belong to Arch and thus the TUs can do whatever they want because they are part of Arch. It is true that all contributions to the AUR are contributions to Arch. AUR maintainers do not "own" their packages and if the community as a whole is best served by moving those packages then that is what should be done. TUs do not need to ask permission before orphaning or deleting a package, so adopting or moving a package should be no different. However, more should be taken into consideration than just official permissions. I fully understand Greg's sentiment and I have argued for contacting maintainers before when this issue has arisen. Just because a TU is within his rights to move the package without contacting the maintainer, it doesn't mean he should. The attitude expressed by some of the TUs in reply to this shows a fundamental lack of appreciation for community spirit. Arch benefits immeasurably from such contributions, and being rude to contributors is not in the best interest of the project. Sending a message or leaving a comment is neither difficult nor time consuming. Effectively telling AUR maintainers "stfu, you should be honored, plus you don't own it anyway" is not the way I think TUs should deal with AUR maintainers. We all do the same thing. The only difference is that TUs have some official label stamped on them that gives them access to [community]. I suspect that most TUs would expect to be informed of changes made to packages that they maintain, so why should AUR maintainers be any different? It might be within your rights to be rude, but you are not helping Arch in the long run by doing so. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Le 5 février 2011 13:45:20, Thomas S Hatch a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > > what I've read before). > > > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > > object to unilateral decisions. > > > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Greg > > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > the blood on the knife's edge. > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki > entry. > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > march to making Arch greater. > > -Thomas S Hatch > -Arch Linux Trusted User It is important to recognize the work done by the AUR contributor. Also we should not forget that TUs and Jr Devs are frequently selected among them. I can give a personal example. I was contacted by Thomas Dziedzic some weeks after being accepted as a Jr dev. He asked me if he could add the openmpi package into [community]. My nomination was not well known at that time. This mail gives me the possibility to tell him that I wanted to continue to maintain it and that I planned to add it to [community] later. I maintain it in [community] now. I really appreciated that he asked me instead of just taking the package. Stéphane
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > >> > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the > >> maintainer > >> > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I > >> also > >> > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > >> > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch > development, > >> > the blood on the knife's edge. > >> > > >> > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost > respect > >> and > >> > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > >> > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this > >> wiki > >> > entry. > >> > > >> > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors > the > >> > utmost respect, they deserve it. > >> > > >> > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will > allow > >> us > >> > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > >> march > >> > to making Arch greater. > >> > >> I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and > >> waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge > >> problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos > >> shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the > >> community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package > >> has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a > >> place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains > >> the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. > >> > >> Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And > >> another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about > >> a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the > >> appropriate place for this. > >> > > > > > > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to > open > > source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of > > receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could > > have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch > > reserves rights to. > > > > But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the > > package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before > > moving the package to community I still think that it is important to > > recognize the maintainer who paved the road. > > > > I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the > AUR > > maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should > develop > > and maintain an atmosphere of respect. > > > > To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting > > AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw > > the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be > > mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged > > courtesy. > > > > -Thomas S Hatch > > > > I agree. Even if the packages are part of archlinux, the courteous > thing to do would be to send an email before moving the packages to > see if the original maintainer is onboard with it. Though he may not > own it, he does have a sense of authorship, and that needs to be taken > into account. We're still dealing with people here :) > > -Thomas > I want to make sure that no one gets me wrong, I agree with Angel, and I feel strongly that the technical progress of Arch Linux should in no way be hampered by political or social barriers. But often the best way to avoid making political and social barriers is through respect and courtesy. As far as I know, the TUs make an effort to show this courtesy and respect. If an AUR contributor does not feel that they have been treated fairly, then they should email the TU that adopted the package and KINDLY (we get emails from crazy people sometimes, and those usually get ignored) let them know that a notification would have been nice, and ask for the courtesy next time. We want to be kind and respectful, but we also want Arch to kick more butt, and to be quite honest, we TUs probably all care more about Arch kicking butt, than we care about your feelings. With that said, I think that it is most likely that contributors care much more about Arch kicking butt than they do about their own feelings. We all make mistakes, but as a whole we can put the mistakes aside and work on the overall betterment of Linux, open source and freedom, isn't that what this is all about? -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 21:00 +0100, Maxime Wack wrote: > I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I was > maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got aware of > this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the same as in the > repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my package on AUR anymore. > Not that I particularly care about that package, or that I didn't want > it to be in [Community], in fact it's for the best, less work for me ! > But what I didn't like was that it was done without any comment or > notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not implying that it was MY > precious package and that it felt like stealing, or that he had to wait > for my approval. It's just that talking about a community-driven > repository, the least you could expect from any user (and even more from > a *trusted* user) would be to communicate about what he's doing, so that > everything goes clear, acknowledged and understood. > After discovering this, I emailed Jelle van der Waa (who adopted the > package), on 01/21, writing : > > >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. > >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be assured > that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have been > nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication practice. > > > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " > > And I didn't get any answer… I apologize for taking your package without emailing or notifiying you and more I feel bad for not replying to your email. And now i am ashamed on the mailing list, I won't forget to mail the next time I adopt packages and move them to [community]. -- Jelle van der Waa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 6 February 2011 02:31, Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. This has come up a couple of times before, and we all know it is very wrong to move a package from [unsupported] _without prior notice_. We have since been reminding each other, but it looks like the word hasn't reached some of us. Perhaps it is time to put this in the guidelines? We cannot just assume that everyone would be in the know, although I expect that the individuals we (s)elect to take care of the AUR have at least this much understanding. But I don't think that's the main issue here, which brings me to: > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Now, this is something I find very strange. I wish I had the previous discussions to link to, so you could better understand what I am about to mention. You have to understand that the AUR started out with a purpose, a purpose which has not, and will not for the foreseeable future, change. It serves as a platform for proposing packages for redistribution, and not a platform for competition. Imagine: * Jane needs package foobar * Jane cannot find package foobar in the repositories * Jane creates package foobar for her own use * Jane now wants to share package foobar so this cycle does not repeat When you upload a PKGBUILD, you are _sharing_ that PKGBUILD. If a Trusted User wants to adopt it, that's a good thing for the community. You don't have to feel challenged, because we are all users, one and the same, TU or not. You can continue providing assistance if you see the need, by communicating with the TU. When I myself started out contributing PKGBUILDs to [unsupported], I did it hoping one day they will receive enough votes and be adopted by a TU, enabling the packages to be redistributed to the masses in binary form, easily accessible with the package manager. I believe this is the true spirit, the Arch Spirit. Of course, it is not wrong to want to keep maintaining a package yourself. It just does not make sense to me. If you really have a problem, report the packages affected and we can drop them for you.
[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
I had the same "problem" a few weeks ago, when the polipo package I was maintaining was moved to [Community] without any notice. I got aware of this when yaourt told me my version of polipo was not the same as in the repos… imagine my surprise when I didn't find my package on AUR anymore. Not that I particularly care about that package, or that I didn't want it to be in [Community], in fact it's for the best, less work for me ! But what I didn't like was that it was done without any comment or notice. Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not implying that it was MY precious package and that it felt like stealing, or that he had to wait for my approval. It's just that talking about a community-driven repository, the least you could expect from any user (and even more from a *trusted* user) would be to communicate about what he's doing, so that everything goes clear, acknowledged and understood. After discovering this, I emailed Jelle van der Waa (who adopted the package), on 01/21, writing : >Hello, I'm SataMaxx on AUR and was maintaining the polipo package. >I've seen that you adopted and ported it to [Community] and be assured that I really don't mind about this, however I think it would have been nice to notify me, just as a matter of good communication practice. > >Thank you, have a nice day ! " And I didn't get any answer…
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer > wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: >> > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the >> maintainer >> > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I >> also >> > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who >> > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, >> > the blood on the knife's edge. >> > >> > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect >> and >> > appreciation. I would also like to point out: >> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification >> > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this >> wiki >> > entry. >> > >> > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the >> > utmost respect, they deserve it. >> > >> > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow >> us >> > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our >> march >> > to making Arch greater. >> >> I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and >> waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge >> problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos >> shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the >> community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package >> has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a >> place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains >> the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. >> >> Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And >> another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about >> a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the >> appropriate place for this. >> > > > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to open > source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of > receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could > have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch > reserves rights to. > > But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the > package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before > moving the package to community I still think that it is important to > recognize the maintainer who paved the road. > > I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the AUR > maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should develop > and maintain an atmosphere of respect. > > To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting > AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw > the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be > mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged > courtesy. > > -Thomas S Hatch > I agree. Even if the packages are part of archlinux, the courteous thing to do would be to send an email before moving the packages to see if the original maintainer is onboard with it. Though he may not own it, he does have a sense of authorship, and that needs to be taken into account. We're still dealing with people here :) -Thomas
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi, fellow Archers, I feel a need to express my support to the opinion stated by Greg Imreh and Thomas Hatch. There is an unique relation between the contributor/maintainer and the PKGBUILD. This relation calls for respect. So please TUs/devs act as people and show it by letting first the contributor/maintainer know, that you are about to adopt a PKGBUILD to the binary repo. Surely adoption in the repo by itself is greater good for the package and Arch and therefor goal of every maintainer, so there hardly will be objections from the maintainer, but just taking it without a word is very rude. There would be no package to adopt, if there was not for the AUR contributor/maintainer. To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership, but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless machines nor animals. Nicky -- Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone (Joni Mitchell)
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
It would be technologically helpful if moving a package to Community (or just deleting it from the AUR) did not consign its AUR comments to the eternal bit bucket in the sky. At any rate, I often wish I could see what was on the AUR page just before it was moved. ((if you want an example:: One of my AUR packages had some commentary I was planning on thinking about more. Then it was (unexpectedly to me) moved to [community]. I couldn't see the conversation or check which was the last PKGBUILD version I'd uploaded. In this case I wanted to do so because there was some more work I'd been planning on doing on the PKGBUILD, as its maintainer; I wanted to helpfully see if the new TU maintainer had made similar improvements already, or if there was something left that I could suggest.)) -Isaac
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On 02/05/2011 08:31 PM, Gergely Imreh wrote: Hi, Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the process feels a little uneasy to me. I moved a lot of packages from AUR in community/extra and every time i did sent a "thank you" note. From that amount of messages i sent, only once i got a reply. ONCE. Should i be dissapointed? I guess yes. I am? No. My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. that is the perfect world but we don't live in such world. At least your name remains as contributor for that build. -- Ionuț
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the > maintainer > > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I > also > > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > > the blood on the knife's edge. > > > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect > and > > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this > wiki > > entry. > > > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow > us > > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our > march > > to making Arch greater. > > I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and > waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge > problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos > shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the > community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package > has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a > place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains > the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. > > Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And > another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about > a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the > appropriate place for this. > Angel has many good and valid points, I am proud of my contributions to open source and to Arch. My willingness to give without the expectation of receiving anything back has given me, personally, much more than I could have expected. Also it is true, that what you submit to the AUR, Arch reserves rights to. But these points should not reduce the fact that a person contributed the package, and even when I have had to completely rewrite a PKGBUILD before moving the package to community I still think that it is important to recognize the maintainer who paved the road. I am going to maintain, that a TU is not to be required to contact the AUR maintainer, but it is the courteous thing to do, and that we should develop and maintain an atmosphere of respect. To reiterate Lukas, notifications should ALWAYS be placed before deleting AUR packages and moving AUR packages to community. Thats how I would draw the line, posting the comments about moves and deletions should be mandatory, and contacting the maintainer should be a strongly encouraged courtesy. -Thomas S Hatch
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:45:20AM -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer > of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also > want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who > contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, > the blood on the knife's edge. > > We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and > appreciation. I would also like to point out: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification > All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki > entry. > > I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the > utmost respect, they deserve it. > > A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us > to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our march > to making Arch greater. I personally asked for objections using AUR comments in most cases and waited some days before moving stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see a huge problem with just moving stuff. Moving a package to the binary repos shouldn't be regarded as stealing but as an improvement for the community. The AUR ain't a place for competitions (like "Which package has the most votes?" or "Who maintains the coolest packages?") but a place to provide source packages until a TU/Dev steps up and maintains the package in [community]/[extra]/[core]. Still, I'd prefer to have some announcement before moving a package. And another one just before removing it (so that users being notified about a package become aware of the move). AUR comments seem to be the appropriate place for this.
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh : > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install (PKGBUILD) experimental software. > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not experimental at all. I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing, well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD. Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now you will contribute without hoping regalies or something. > > Cheers, > Greg > -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [aur-general] Moving packages to Community
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote: > Hi, > > Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the > process feels a little uneasy to me. > > My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of > packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so > many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that > yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, > as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing > what I've read before). > > If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that > popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking > the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, > except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now > bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I > wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, > object to unilateral decisions. > > My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer > first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package > then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been > doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. > > Cheers, > Greg > Greg, You have a valid point, personally I have always asked the maintainer of a package for objections before moving a package into community. I also want to continue to express my deep gratitude for the packagers who contribute to the AUR. They are really the frontline in Arch development, the blood on the knife's edge. We as trusted users need to show the devs in the AUR the utmost respect and appreciation. I would also like to point out: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Person_Specification All TUs we should adhere to the first bullet under "At Least" on this wiki entry. I hope that my fellow TUs agree that we should give AUR contributors the utmost respect, they deserve it. A behavior of respect will help us, the TUs, improve Arch, it will allow us to bring more people onto the Arch development teams, and continue our march to making Arch greater. -Thomas S Hatch -Arch Linux Trusted User
[aur-general] Moving packages to Community
Hi, Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the process feels a little uneasy to me. My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos, as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing what I've read before). If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value, except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however, object to unilateral decisions. My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular. Cheers, Greg
Re: [aur-general] moving packages to community
On Sunday 05 December 2010 17:21:16 Kaiting Chen wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: > > > Thx guys for letting me know you would move some packages from AUR to > > community > > > > thats really stimulating to contribute something > > > > if you dont know what i'm talking about > > > > - libssh2 ( i picked it up after bash dropped it in AUR) > > - podofo (cant remember how i picked it up) > > > > It would just be a little polite , just to let someone know the move will > > be done > > > > cant be that hard to send a mail ;) > > > > I'm confused, are you the maintainer of these packages in the AUR? Usually > we will notify the maintainer of a package if it is moved from [unsupported] > to [community]. --Kaiting. > > We'll so it seems yes, both packages moved to community without any notification or it should be google doesnt like those guys and blocks their mails for me It doesnt matter who did it, its just not very pleaseant you have to find out when you see an rss feed or come on the site and see its in community just a simple mail would just be nicer
Re: [aur-general] moving packages to community
On Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:21:16 AM Kaiting Chen wrote: > I'm confused, are you the maintainer of these packages in the AUR? Usually > we will notify the maintainer of a package if it is moved from [unsupported] > to [community]. --Kaiting. Seems that Sergej didn't this time... -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [aur-general] moving packages to community
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: > Thx guys for letting me know you would move some packages from AUR to > community > > thats really stimulating to contribute something > > if you dont know what i'm talking about > > - libssh2 ( i picked it up after bash dropped it in AUR) > - podofo (cant remember how i picked it up) > > It would just be a little polite , just to let someone know the move will > be done > > cant be that hard to send a mail ;) > I'm confused, are you the maintainer of these packages in the AUR? Usually we will notify the maintainer of a package if it is moved from [unsupported] to [community]. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
[aur-general] moving packages to community
Thx guys for letting me know you would move some packages from AUR to community thats really stimulating to contribute something if you dont know what i'm talking about - libssh2 ( i picked it up after bash dropped it in AUR) - podofo (cant remember how i picked it up) It would just be a little polite , just to let someone know the move will be done cant be that hard to send a mail ;)
[aur-general] Moving packages to community
Hi everyone, I'd like to move the following packages to community: 1) pspshrink [1] 2) ntlmaps [2] In fact I am writting a wiki page about using ntlmaps through the Arch Linux Installation for complementing the begginer guide :). Opinions? [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17076 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11156 -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
