[arch-dev-public] Artwork Team?
Hi, It looks like most of our artwork packages are orphan in the official repositories, and two of them are on the Midyear Cleanup list. Is it OK to drop them into unsupported? Or why don't we have an official Artwork Team who maintain these packages? I suppose that we could find contributors if we want. Currently orphan artwork packages: - archlinux-artwork - archlinux-lxdm-theme - archlinux-themes-slim - archlinux-wallpaper -- György Balló (City-busz) Trusted User
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Balló György <ballogyor@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
It looks like most of our artwork packages are orphan in the official repositories, and two of them are on the Midyear Cleanup list.
Is it OK to drop them into unsupported? Or why don't we have an official Artwork Team who maintain these packages? I suppose that we could find contributors if we want.
Currently orphan artwork packages: - archlinux-artwork - archlinux-lxdm-theme - archlinux-themes-slim - archlinux-wallpaper
-- György Balló (City-busz) Trusted User
I just adopted archlinux-themes-slim beacuse I use that one.
[2013-10-04 20:37:38 +0200] Balló György:
Or why don't we have an official Artwork Team who maintain these packages?
So just like a regular dev/TU, except restricted to artwork packages? That makes very little sense to me... If no dev/TU wants to maintain them, let them find carers in the AUR. -- Gaetan
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2013-10-04 20:37:38 +0200] Balló György:
Or why don't we have an official Artwork Team who maintain these packages?
So just like a regular dev/TU, except restricted to artwork packages? That makes very little sense to me...
If no dev/TU wants to maintain them, let them find carers in the AUR.
-- Gaetan
I don't think these packages should be in the AUR, given that they just repackage content from our FTP for access via pacman. Whenever someone uploads new artwork to our FTP, they should also update these packages. Otherwise, they are pretty much zero maintenance.
[2013-10-05 05:17:18 +0200] Jan Alexander Steffens:
I don't think these packages should be in the AUR, given that they just repackage content from our FTP for access via pacman.
There are tons of PKGBUILD on the AUR whose sole purpose is to package a single script which is readily available on the Web. I see no problem with that.
Whenever someone uploads new artwork to our FTP, they should also update these packages. Otherwise, they are pretty much zero maintenance.
I understand that we are supposed to be the upstream on this, but since no developer or trusted user has shown interest in maintaining these packages, why not let users do it? Things like desktop manager themes could be improved by the community. Ultimately if neither official Arch packagers or users care, those packages could just be plain removed... -- Gaetan
On 05/10/13 14:06, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2013-10-05 05:17:18 +0200] Jan Alexander Steffens:
I don't think these packages should be in the AUR, given that they just repackage content from our FTP for access via pacman.
There are tons of PKGBUILD on the AUR whose sole purpose is to package a single script which is readily available on the Web. I see no problem with that.
Whenever someone uploads new artwork to our FTP, they should also update these packages. Otherwise, they are pretty much zero maintenance.
I understand that we are supposed to be the upstream on this, but since no developer or trusted user has shown interest in maintaining these packages, why not let users do it? Things like desktop manager themes could be improved by the community. Ultimately if neither official Arch packagers or users care, those packages could just be plain removed...
I have had an email pointed out that these artworks carry our TM and we may want to consider the consequences of not controlling them ourselves. Allan
[2013-10-06 11:46:49 +1000] Allan McRae:
On 05/10/13 14:06, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
I understand that we are supposed to be the upstream on this, but since no developer or trusted user has shown interest in maintaining these packages, why not let users do it? Things like desktop manager themes could be improved by the community. Ultimately if neither official Arch packagers or users care, those packages could just be plain removed...
I have had an email pointed out that these artworks carry our TM and we may want to consider the consequences of not controlling them ourselves.
We control the artworks, but do we also need to control the window manager themes that use them? And the packages that include them? Anyway, I'm fine with anyone but me adopting this. :) -- Gaetan
On 6 October 2013 04:11, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2013-10-06 11:46:49 +1000] Allan McRae:
On 05/10/13 14:06, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
I understand that we are supposed to be the upstream on this, but since no developer or trusted user has shown interest in maintaining these packages, why not let users do it? Things like desktop manager themes could be improved by the community. Ultimately if neither official Arch packagers or users care, those packages could just be plain removed...
I have had an email pointed out that these artworks carry our TM and we may want to consider the consequences of not controlling them ourselves.
We control the artworks, but do we also need to control the window manager themes that use them? And the packages that include them?
Anyway, I'm fine with anyone but me adopting this. :)
-- Gaetan
I'd be in favor of keeping the WM agnostic (archlinux-artwork, archlinux-wallpaper) ones in official repos for trademark reasons but I'm confortable with the Slim and LXDM ones going to AUR. Anyway: none of these 4 pakages seems to be an orphan anymore so that could put an end to this discussion :)
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Balló György
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Guillaume Alaux
-
Jan Alexander Steffens