On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:03:43 +0100 Morten Linderud wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 06:34:11PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
[...]
What is the best way to find rationale about package removal or old package logs in general? E.g. pacolog doesn't work on st any more (I guess the logs are removed together with the package?) and even looking for the message linked above felt like there should be a better way.
Looked at the pacolog source, it acts on the branch from the git.archlinux.org website, this is essentially useless when the package is removed from the repos as the website goes away with it. You could search the git logs on the git.archlinux.org page, but thats tedious. I don't know of any better way sadly.
If the commit message above is the only resource to be had, is there some kind of best practices concerning similar commit messages? I would have appreciated at least a short rationale for the removal being included.
I honestly don't know if there is any policy regarding this, I shared the mail to the other TUs and I'll see what they think. However! Yes, I agree. The commit message is horrendous and I'll do better in the future!
What was the rationale in this particular case? The st-git¹ AUR package seems quite popular, so I was surprised to see its non-vcs version removed from community (I would expect the opposite to happen for popular packages).
st is suppose to be compiled with your own config.h along with it. It hasn't really had any release and after some discussion among other TUs, we decided to drop both st and dwm for this reason. After some complaints on reddit[1] I uploaded the old PKGBUILDs to AUR for the sake of being refferences.
I hope this answers your questions!
Thank you very much for the information! (Note to self: have to search Reddit as well next time; Google seems not to have indexed the discussion there yet, although interestingly DuckDuckGo does, now I checked...)
(Readding arch-general, for some reason the headers of my original message seem not to have made it through unmangled.)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:35:18PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
(Readding arch-general, for some reason the headers of my original message seem not to have made it through unmangled.)
No, I need to learn how mutt is suppose to work with mailing lists :)
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:48:37 +0100 Morten Linderud wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 08:35:18PM +0100, Štěpán Němec wrote:
(Readding arch-general, for some reason the headers of my original message seem not to have made it through unmangled.)
No, I need to learn how mutt is suppose to work with mailing lists :)
Well, good to know the headers got to you unhindered, but there's obviously some mangling going on on the mailman side, possibly due to the fact that I switched off mail delivery in the account settings (I'm reading the list via Gmane). I'll have to take that up with mailman@lists.archlinux.org though, I guess.
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org