> Xyne wrote:
> > Also, and this is directed at devs in general, the whole "stfu unless
> > you can submit a patch" mentality is narrow-minded at best. Just
> > because someone can't code it themselves doesn't mean that an idea is
> > bad.Too many people act as though a suggestion were a demand and
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Fri 26 Jun 2009 21:00 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
>> Sorry, but I have to write this...
>>
>> Grig, "you are peeing far away from the toillet" (that's means that
>> your thougts just are wrong), btw I replied in your bug report :)
>
> Damn,
Xyne wrote:
Also, and this is directed at devs in general, the whole "stfu unless
you can submit a patch" mentality is narrow-minded at best. Just
because someone can't code it themselves doesn't mean that an idea is
bad.Too many people act as though a suggestion were a demand and many
devs conte
> Principally you are right, but pressing a button "report malicious
> package" could or should send an e-mail to this mailing list or to every
> TU automatically. This would be the easiest way for the users.
That could lead to spam. A better system would be similar to the
out-of-date system that
> Grigorios, you're an idiot. You're basically just trolling the thread
> now and, correct me if I'm wrong, have provided nothing in the way of
> patches for the AUR like open source is magic where you whine about
> stuff and it gets fixed how you like.
>
> I see absolutely no compelling reason to
> > Sorry, I missed the "older than a week" part. That should be more than
> > enough time for the package to have been reported and deleted. Ignore
> > my previous reply.
>
> One week is not enough. It must be at least one month. If a maintainer
> is on vacation, it's not unusual, that he can't r
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Xyne wrote:
>> 2) comments section may be improved (threaded, ability of maintainer to
>> delete dealt with comments, other?).
>
> Code blocks.
>
> Where's the code for the AUR? Maybe I can submit some patches.
>
http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=aur.git;a=summary
> 2) comments section may be improved (threaded, ability of maintainer to
> delete dealt with comments, other?).
Code blocks.
Where's the code for the AUR? Maybe I can submit some patches.
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:08:44 +0800
schrieb Callan Barrett :
> I will gladly close your bug.
Loui has already done this. :-)
Cheers,
Heiko
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> I see absolutely no compelling reason to get rid of comments and it's
>> ridiculous this thread even exists. The only interesting thing is the
>> idea of improving the comment system and there are no patches for that
>> either.
>>
>
> So
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Callan Barrett wrote:
> Grigorios, you're an idiot. You're basically just trolling the thread
> now and, correct me if I'm wrong, have provided nothing in the way of
> patches for the AUR like open source is magic where you whine about
> stuff and it gets fixed how
On Fri 26 Jun 2009 21:00 +1930, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> Sorry, but I have to write this...
>
> Grig, "you are peeing far away from the toillet" (that's means that
> your thougts just are wrong), btw I replied in your bug report :)
Damn, that's a good one. How do you say that in Spanish?
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:03:06 +1930
schrieb Angel Velásquez :
> This will save the time to write a long e-mail to the ml writting "the
> package X which are in http://xxx is malicious" but this feature
> should be powerful if you add a "why" this package were reported as
> malicious, because doing
Grigorios, you're an idiot. You're basically just trolling the thread
now and, correct me if I'm wrong, have provided nothing in the way of
patches for the AUR like open source is magic where you whine about
stuff and it gets fixed how you like.
I see absolutely no compelling reason to get rid of
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:57:23 +0200
> schrieb :
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:52:46 +0200
>> Xyne wrote:
>>
>> IMHO malicious packages should be reported to the list anyway to be
>> removed ASAP.
>> A comment alone wouldn't do it anyway.
>
> Princ
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:12:03 +0300
> schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis :
>
>> Since noone seems to like a change like that, i won't continue alone.
>> For any further discussion please visit the feature request on the
>> bug tracker. This has gone far
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:57:23 +0200
schrieb :
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:52:46 +0200
> Xyne wrote:
>
> IMHO malicious packages should be reported to the list anyway to be
> removed ASAP.
> A comment alone wouldn't do it anyway.
Principally you are right, but pressing a button "report malicious
pac
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:12:03 +0300
schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis :
> Since noone seems to like a change like that, i won't continue alone.
> For any further discussion please visit the feature request on the
> bug tracker. This has gone far enough for a suggestion backed up by
> only 1 person.
>
> P
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> 2009/6/26 Angel Velásquez :
>> Sometimes the maintainer in this case is a Dev or a TU, and eventually
>> they are full of work and they doesn't reply the emails or let the
>> packages out of date or with bugs (in the AUR history *this* fa
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> 2009/6/26 Angel Velásquez :
>> Sometimes the maintainer in this case is a Dev or a TU, and eventually
>> they are full of work and they doesn't reply the emails or let the
>> packages out of date or with bugs (in the AUR history *this* fa
2009/6/26 Angel Velásquez :
> Sometimes the maintainer in this case is a Dev or a TU, and eventually
> they are full of work and they doesn't reply the emails or let the
> packages out of date or with bugs (in the AUR history *this* fact is
> happening), what should do the user in this case?:
>
> 1
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote:
>>> Since i started this, even by stupidly replying to another thread, i
>>> might as well answer
>>> to that.
>>> My suggestion is not having comments in the AUR at all, comments aren
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> I can't believe this conversation is still going!
>
I sent an epiloue 2 mins ago. Check your inbox.
> I am fairly certain about two things
> 1) comments will not be removed
> 2) comments section may be improved (threaded, ability of maintainer
I can't believe this conversation is still going!
I am fairly certain about two things
1) comments will not be removed
2) comments section may be improved (threaded, ability of maintainer to
delete dealt with comments, other?).
How did I come up with that conclusion? It seems to be the opinio
Since noone seems to like a change like that, i won't continue alone.
For any further discussion please visit the feature request on the bug tracker.
This has gone far enough for a suggestion backed up by only 1 person.
PS. Thanks for the vote cyberpatrol! :P
--
Greg
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Gergely Imreh wrote:
>> Since i started this, even by stupidly replying to another thread, i
>> might as well answer
>> to that.
>> My suggestion is not having comments in the AUR at all, comments arent
>> useful to
>> the users. They are only useful to the maintai
On Thursday 25 June 2009 21:23:22 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> If the user is too lazy to follow the maintainer link and then the
> link to his email, then he shouldnt
> be motivated enough to comment either.
Are we trying to package software or testing how motivated our users are?
Why make things
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:52:46 +0200
Xyne wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:27:43 +
> Laurie Clark-Michalek wrote:
>
> > 2009/6/25 Xyne :
> > >> The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments as
> > >> this would make some of the more popular packages' comments
> > >> easier to c
> Since i started this, even by stupidly replying to another thread, i
> might as well answer
> to that.
> My suggestion is not having comments in the AUR at all, comments arent useful
> to
> the users. They are only useful to the maintainer.
I would disagree... Sometimes it is good for maintaner
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:23:22 +0300
schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis :
> How's that for "KISS" ?
KISS are comments for the packages.
bbs, mailing list, bug tracker and mails directly to the maintainer are
the opposite of KISS in my opinion.
And comments are not only useful for the maintainers but also
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
>>
>> Alright. Removing comments is not the solution, but a change in how they
>> work, how they're organised, and how users are notified about changes in
>> packages may be in order.
>>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
>
> Alright. Removing comments is not the solution, but a change in how they
> work, how they're organised, and how users are notified about changes in
> packages may be in order.
>
> Specific ideas on how that can be done are always welcome in the
Am Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:52:46 +0200
schrieb Xyne :
> Sorry, I missed the "older than a week" part. That should be more than
> enough time for the package to have been reported and deleted. Ignore
> my previous reply.
One week is not enough. It must be at least one month. If a maintainer
is on vaca
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:27:43 +
Laurie Clark-Michalek wrote:
> 2009/6/25 Xyne :
> >> The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments as this
> >> would make some of the more popular packages' comments easier to clean
> >> up. Instead of a trusted user needing to do this, the owne
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM, nathan owe. wrote:
> ok. well i guess i can copy the fsprc file to /usr/share/fsp/ and make a
> install script to let the users know where to get the file and how to do it?
>
>
> Ronald van Haren wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:25 AM, nathan owe.
>> wrote:
ok. well i guess i can copy the fsprc file to /usr/share/fsp/ and make a
install script to let the users know where to get the file and how to do it?
Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:25 AM, nathan owe. wrote:
can i do install -dm755 $srcdir/fsprc "$pkgdir"$HOME/.fsprc
i
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:25 AM, nathan owe. wrote:
> can i do install -dm755 $srcdir/fsprc "$pkgdir"$HOME/.fsprc
> i tried install -dm755 $srcdir/fsprc "$pkgdir"~/.fsprc but it wouldn't
> install it to the $HOME dir
>
you shouldn't install files to the users home directory
Ronald
can i do install -dm755 $srcdir/fsprc "$pkgdir"$HOME/.fsprc
i tried install -dm755 $srcdir/fsprc "$pkgdir"~/.fsprc but it wouldn't
install it to the $HOME dir
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Xyne wrote:
>> The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments as this
>> would make some of the more popular packages' comments easier to clean
>> up. Instead of a trusted user needing to do this, the owner of the
>> package could be allowed to delet
2009/6/25 Xyne :
>> The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments as this
>> would make some of the more popular packages' comments easier to clean
>> up. Instead of a trusted user needing to do this, the owner of the
>> package could be allowed to delete any comments older that a w
> The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments as this
> would make some of the more popular packages' comments easier to clean
> up. Instead of a trusted user needing to do this, the owner of the
> package could be allowed to delete any comments older that a week.
> That's a polic
I agree with Heiko regarding the utility of the comments for
unsupported packages. They provide a single location for posting
caveats, updated PKGBUILDs, discussing the particulars of building the
PKG, etc. It would be sheer folly to remove them and expect users and
maintainers to hunt down this in
On Thursday 25 June 2009 17:39:32 Aaron Griffin wrote:
> They can... /arch/db-update kde-unstable i686
Yes we can. But it wont work. (hint: split packages)
--
Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Not much point filing them as feture requests if you (as in the
collective, not you in person) decide to deleat the comment system xD.
The point was that reform is better than change (oooh I sound so
concervative).
Do what you want xD,
Laurie
2009/6/25 Ray Rashif :
> Yes, and these should be fil
Yes, and these should be filed as feature requests for AUR ;)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:
>>
>> 2009/6/24 Aaron Griffin :
>>
>>>
>>> Which part? Is there a patch I forgot to merge, or are you just
>>> bumping the dbscripts as a whole?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, I was just saying that the any architecture could be trie
2009/6/25 :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:50:34 +0800
> Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>
> I don't really see a point in that much discussion.
> [community] will vanish from AUR anyway.
>
> 1) [unsupported] should keep the comments.
>
> 2) The maintainer of a package should be able to delete comments
> (cleanup
2009/6/25 Evangelos Foutras :
> Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> I've just found out that the package bf-blender [1] is exact copy of
>> my package blender-svn [2]. It's maintainer even doesn't bother to
>> mention me in the PKGBUILD although it's clearly visible that only
>> change made to i
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 17:36, Ronald van Haren wrote:
> yes AUR can notify you at new comments, there is a checkbox. Point is that
> the bug tracker is much easier as you can track bugs much easier. In AUR you
> get notified once and forget about it if you're busy at that moment.
Somewhat disagre
Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
Hello,
I've just found out that the package bf-blender [1] is exact copy of
my package blender-svn [2]. It's maintainer even doesn't bother to
mention me in the PKGBUILD although it's clearly visible that only
change made to it is adding blender-svn to conflicts and changin
Hello,
I've just found out that the package bf-blender [1] is exact copy of
my package blender-svn [2]. It's maintainer even doesn't bother to
mention me in the PKGBUILD although it's clearly visible that only
change made to it is adding blender-svn to conflicts and changing
description. I think th
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:50:34 +0800
Ray Rashif wrote:
> If the interface were to provide notification when and if the
> maintainer has linked a url under, say, a "discussion thread"
> variable, then it'll work out pretty much the same way as how
> comments are handled now. But this also means the
When I first started submitting to AUR, I was surprised that there was
no option to delete comments. My second thought was "Oh well, they are
probably deleted automatically after a certain amount of time".
Having the comments just linger on, without being able to weed out
irrelevant comments seems
On Thu 25 Jun 2009 14:03 +0300, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Instead, what happened. The package was left unmaintained for 1.5 year
> (i assume it was
> updated today which might be wrong) but anyway it was certainly left
> unmaintained for some
> time , and the issue that this comment was meant to
On Thu 25 Jun 2009 13:23 +0300, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Xavier wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM, bardo wrote:
> > >
> > > Keep the information where it belongs (on the package page) and keep a
> > > clean structure (don't put everything in one pl
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:23:36 +0300
> schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis :
>
>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15040
>
> This is an example, why sending comments to the maintainer directly is
> not the best idea.
>
> The original contributor ha
Am Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:23:36 +0300
schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis :
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15040
This is an example, why sending comments to the maintainer directly is
not the best idea.
The original contributor hasn't fixed the issues and had no interest in
maintaining it anymor
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM, bardo wrote:
> >
> > Keep the information where it belongs (on the package page) and keep a
> > clean structure (don't put everything in one place without easy ways
> > to filter). Where's the KISS philosophy?
> >
2009/6/25 Evangelos Foutras :
> Borislav Gerassimov wrote:
>>
>> For changes to take place I'm requesting the following packages to be
>> deleted from the AUR:
>>
>> (These are replaced by qutim-protocol-*-svn PKGBUILDS. I've added
>> replace, conflicts and provides lines to them.)
>> http://aur.ar
If the interface were to provide notification when and if the maintainer has
linked a url under, say, a "discussion thread" variable, then it'll work out
pretty much the same way as how comments are handled now. But this also
means the maintainer has to know whether someone actually opened up a
thr
Borislav Gerassimov wrote:
For changes to take place I'm requesting the following packages to be
deleted from the AUR:
(These are replaced by qutim-protocol-*-svn PKGBUILDS. I've added
replace, conflicts and provides lines to them.)
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22518 - qutim-plugin-i
Hi,
I'm currently the maintainer of most of the qutim's PKGBUILDs.
Recently, some people requested the plugins which add support for
different protocols to Qutim, to be named qutim-protocol-*-svn. Some
request that the language support should be named l10n, I agreed with
that too. For reference, h
2009/6/25 Xavier :
> Having the information on the package page is indeed very practical.
>
> I guess the problem is that there is absolutely no organization and
> structure of that information. No way to group messages by problems,
> to easily see which points are still open / relevant, etc.
If y
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM, bardo wrote:
>
> Keep the information where it belongs (on the package page) and keep a
> clean structure (don't put everything in one place without easy ways
> to filter). Where's the KISS philosophy?
>
> This is a BIG -1 from me.
>
Having the information on the
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 17:03, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> May i suggest something slightly relevant, but probably very radical?
>> Disable comments on AUR completely.
I don't understand why this was even proposed. It seems rather obvious
to me that this is not a wise idea: how is a package mai
Am Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:28:53 +0200
schrieb Heiko Baums :
> I guess most maintainers like me are not on this mailing list. And
> finding comments on this mailing list, e.g. in the archive, is not
> really funny. I think many comments wouldn't be noticed by the
> appropriate maintainer. So moving th
Hi,
I'm one of those "hobby maintainers", who maintain only a few packages
on AUR.
And I agree with Gergely Imreh. Moving the AUR comments to the mailing
list or to the bbs is not an option.
I'm only on this mailing list, because a while ago I had an orphan
request.
I guess most maintainers lik
I have to agree that the AUR comments "framework" is looking more and more
like a forum..In view of that, it meets the criteria to be scrapped
entirely. As far as I can tell, there is already a forum section for AUR
packages, and discussions can be initiated there if the need arises. A forum
thread
68 matches
Mail list logo
