> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:07:51 +0200
> From: l.jirkov...@gmail.com
> To: aur-general@archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users
>
> On 19 July 2013 20:40, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>>
On 19 July 2013 20:40, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> And that is what email notifications for.
They are good when someone flags our package out of date. But after
that it is easy to forget about it.
> I don't think that *manual* mass orphaning is a good idea. There
> should be an automatic wa
Den 20-07-2013 09:39, Jonathan Steel skrev:
On Sat 20 Jul 2013 at 07:49, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote:
FWIW, I've sent e-mails to maintainers that replied back and got
around to updating their packages. You likely don't hear about
these, as the requests (seldomly, anyway) come to this mailin
On 07/20/2013 01:58 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Willem wrote:
What about the package users?
Will users who have voted for a package be emailed that the package is about
to be deleted (automatically)? And be asked whether he wants to become the
maintainer?
I'm c
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Willem wrote:
> What about the package users?
>
> Will users who have voted for a package be emailed that the package is about
> to be deleted (automatically)? And be asked whether he wants to become the
> maintainer?
I'm confused. Are we talking about orphaning o
What about the package users?
Will users who have voted for a package be emailed that the package is
about to be deleted (automatically)? And be asked whether he wants to
become the maintainer?
On Sat 20 Jul 2013 at 07:49, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote:
> Den 19-07-2013 22:45, Jonathan Steel skrev:
> >[...] If in doubt, an email to
> >them won't hurt, but in my experience this has always lead to disowning them.
>
> FWIW, I've sent e-mails to maintainers that replied back and got
> ar
Den 19-07-2013 22:45, Jonathan Steel skrev:
[...] If in doubt, an email to
them won't hurt, but in my experience this has always lead to disowning them.
FWIW, I've sent e-mails to maintainers that replied back and got around
to updating their packages. You likely don't hear about these, as th
On Fri 19 Jul 2013 at 01:09, Maxime GAUDUIN wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> > [...]
> > About causing panic when orphaning: the package will continue to be
> > available and work even if it's orphaned, but now there is a chance
> > that someone will pick up the
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
> The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time.
> I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though
> I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date.
> BTW, leaving the packa
Hi
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
> On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly
>> explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new
>> version. Ideally maintainer should also
On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi
>
> In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly
> explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new
> version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on
> resolving the issues. But silently leave the
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:40:17 +0200
> From: l.jirkov...@gmail.com
> To: aur-general@archlinux.org
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users
>
...
> I'm strongly against the idea of automatic o
Hi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
> I'm strongly against the idea of automatic orphaning. Sometimes the
> package may be outdated simply because the new version doesn't work or
> has some serious issues.
In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly
On 18 July 2013 23:24, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The two packages that are out of date has not been updated for three years.
>
> My plan is to orphan all his packages if nobody thinks that's a
> horribly bad idea.
>
> I'm also interested in comments about what should be done for similar
>
Hi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Agustin Ferrario
wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 11:39 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there any style checker tool for PKGBUILD files? Something similar
>> to lint? If yes then it worth checking for style violations as well,
>> e.g. "PKGBUILD does not have pac
On 07/18/2013 08:39 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Phillip Smith wrote:
Is there any style checker tool for PKGBUILD files? Something similar
to lint? If yes then it worth checking for style violations as well,
e.g. "PKGBUILD does not have package()" function. So
On 07/18/2013 11:39 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is there any style checker tool for PKGBUILD files? Something similar
> to lint? If yes then it worth checking for style violations as well,
> e.g. "PKGBUILD does not have package()" function. So bot can send a
> note to owner and mark the pack
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Anatol Pomozov
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Phillip Smith wrote:
>> On 19 July 2013 10:28, John D Jones III wrote:
>>> I like this... though I think 6 months would be better than 3 on the
>>> initial Orphaning. There should for sure be a fina
Hi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Phillip Smith wrote:
> On 19 July 2013 10:28, John D Jones III wrote:
>> I like this... though I think 6 months would be better than 3 on the initial
>> Orphaning. There should for sure be a final "DUDE!!! Fix your crap" Warning
>> email sent to the maintain
On 19 July 2013 11:02, Phillip Smith wrote:
> A daily process to automatically disown abandoned packages would be
> great, but it needs to account for the last modified date too:
I realized just as I hit send that a package can never be flagged out
of date longer than the last updated date. Derp.
On 19 July 2013 10:28, John D Jones III wrote:
> I like this... though I think 6 months would be better than 3 on the initial
> Orphaning. There should for sure be a final "DUDE!!! Fix your crap" Warning
> email sent to the maintainer, like above, perhaps a 7 day warning?
A daily process to aut
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:26:33PM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Geoffrey van Wyk
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 July 2013 14:56:40 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> >
> >> "if a package is marked out-of-date
> >> for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically"
> >
> > Loo
On 07/18/2013 04:36 PM, Geoffrey van Wyk wrote:
On Thursday 18 July 2013 19:26:33 Daniel Micay wrote:
And a last warning 5 days before orphanage.
I like this... though I think 6 months would be better than 3 on the
initial Orphaning. There should for sure be a final "DUDE!!! Fix your
crap"
On Thursday 18 July 2013 19:26:33 Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Geoffrey van Wyk
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 July 2013 14:56:40 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> >> "if a package is marked out-of-date
> >> for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically"
> >
> > Looks like
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> As long as it fires off a warning email or two (at 1 month
> out-of-date, and again at 2), I don't see any problems with doing
> that.
This.
We have a policy of "e-mail the maintainer and wait 2 weeks for
response" so disowning a package w/o
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Geoffrey van Wyk
wrote:
> On Thursday 18 July 2013 14:56:40 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>
>> "if a package is marked out-of-date
>> for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically"
>
> Looks like a good policy.
As long as it fires off a warning email or two (at 1 m
On Thursday 18 July 2013 14:56:40 Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> "if a package is marked out-of-date
> for more than 3 months then it disowns automatically"
Looks like a good policy.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Thank you for the comments, appreciate it!
>
> About causing panic when orphaning: the package will continue to be
> available and work even if it's orphaned, but now there is a chance
> that someone will pick up the thread where the pre
On 19 July 2013 05:24, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> I'm also interested in comments about what should be done for similar
> situations in the future. I assume most users would be happy just to
> see the pacakges being updated instead of hoarded and would think it
> was fine if TUs just orphan them a
Thank you for the comments, appreciate it!
About causing panic when orphaning: the package will continue to be
available and work even if it's orphaned, but now there is a chance
that someone will pick up the thread where the previous maintainer
left of and improve and update the PKGBUILD. If some
Hi
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Some of these packages are out of date and some have better PKGBUILDs
> in the comments:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=phi&SeB=m
>
> Last activity from the user was over two years ago: 2011-03-17 (the
> brother-hl2
On 07/18/2013 03:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
There are quite a few orphaned packages nobody is maintaining or
updating even though they have updated PKGBUILDs posted in the
comments.
Users can always ask for a package to be orphaned.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Some of these packages are out of date and some have better PKGBUILDs
> in the comments:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=phi&SeB=m
>
> Last activity from the user was over two years ago: 2011-03-17 (the
> brother-hl2030
Hi,
Some of these packages are out of date and some have better PKGBUILDs
in the comments:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=phi&SeB=m
Last activity from the user was over two years ago: 2011-03-17 (the
brother-hl2030 package)
The two packages that are out of date has not been updated for t
35 matches
Mail list logo
