Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [extra] repository cleanup
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:46:30 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:
I adopted some (and edited the page). Nice, today we have 291 orphans packages in [extra] (they were 352
On Thursday 11 November 2010 22:54:36 Roman Kyrylych wrote: three days ago). 62 will be moved to [community]. 127 to AUR.
I didn't expect this success. I can start moving them today if you agree.
<AUR> ding galculator gift gift-fasttrack gift-gnutella gift-openft gimp-fourier gtklp hexcurse httrack pan screem tcptraceroute
Nice, then I would need to install 110 packages from AUR and compile them manually. When I switched to Arch Linux about 3 years ago it was less than 50. When will the so called "binary distribution" Arch Linux become a second Gentoo, a pure source based distribution, because "no developer is interested in maintaining" anything anymore? Btw., PKGBUILDs also in AUR need to be maintained. Really sad this progress and this massive and pointless cleanup. Those packages are also quite common and important:
eboard gdesklets lincity pure-ftpd tcsh tin
I guess there are some more in your list. Also squashfs-utils which is "degraded" to community belongs to [extra] because it is necessary for building LiveCDs as far as I know. You really should reconsider this cleanup. You should consider that such a distribution - and Arch Linux isn't a small and unimportant distro anymore - is not only about some personal preferences of the developers. Developers of such a binary distro should also maintain packages which they are not using themselves. And, btw., funny enough was ding updated recently although it was orphaned. I wouldn't say anything if you would cleanup the official repos from unnecessary, unimportant and unused or hardly used packages like some ttf fonts, GTK1 themes, etc. But there are too many, too important packages in your list which definitely belong into the official binary repos and which are in the official binary repos of every other binary distribution. Heiko
On Saturday 13 November 2010 15:23:45 Heiko Baums wrote:
Nice, then I would need to install 110 packages from AUR and compile them manually. When I switched to Arch Linux about 3 years ago it was less than 50. Is a tiny that you do not use any of ours ~8000 packages in official repositories.
When will the so called "binary distribution" Arch Linux become a second Gentoo, a pure source based distribution, because "no developer is interested in maintaining" anything anymore? Btw., PKGBUILDs also in AUR need to be maintained. Yes, by people which use them.
Also squashfs-utils which is "degraded" to community belongs to [extra] because it is necessary for building LiveCDs as far as I know. Then? You cannot install software which is in [community]?
And, btw., funny enough was ding updated recently although it was orphaned. Yes, was updated by *ME*. Me, Ionut, Eric, Daniel, Giovanni (etc..) update orphans packages when we have a bit of time. But we do not use them and we cannot do many tests, we cannot know if upstread dev added some new feature, etc.
I wouldn't say anything if you would cleanup the official repos from unnecessary, unimportant and unused or hardly used packages like some ttf fonts, GTK1 themes, etc. But there are too many, too important packages in your list which definitely belong into the official binary repos and which are in the official binary repos of every other binary distribution. I'd like to see your application as TU.
-- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:34:20 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:
I'd like to see your application as TU.
There are reasons, why I currently can't. If I could I would do it. I hope this will change in the near future, but it can take a while. Heiko
On 14/11/10 00:23, Heiko Baums wrote:
I wouldn't say anything if you would cleanup the official repos from unnecessary, unimportant and unused or hardly used packages like some ttf fonts, GTK1 themes, etc. But there are too many, too important packages in your list which definitely belong into the official binary repos and which are in the official binary repos of every other binary distribution.
If no developer wants to maintain them in [extra] and no TU wants to maintain them in [community], then these packages are not important as defined bt the people who actually do work around here. And it is the people who do work that determine what the distro is... So if you want to change that, step up and become a TU and maintain some packages. Allan
On (11/13/10 15:23), Heiko Baums wrote: -~> Those packages are also quite common and important: -~> -~> > eboard -~> > gdesklets -~> > lincity -~> > pure-ftpd -~> > tcsh -~> > tin Let's see... eboard: The latest version is: 1.1.1 (Feb 22nd, 2008) gdesklets: gDesklets 0.36.1 released November 5th 2008 lincity: The current stable release of lincity is version 1.12.1 (Aug. 13, 2004) tin: TIN 1.9.5 (unstable) was released on December 24th, 2009 Looks like a bunch of creeeeepy software. pure-ftpd: Server -- if you use it, you must know how to build it. tsch: Well, it's like back to the future, only in reverse, right? BTW, games under linux just... well... hmmm. -- lisaev@svibor
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:05:46 -0500 schrieb Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu>:
eboard: The latest version is: 1.1.1 (Feb 22nd, 2008) gdesklets: gDesklets 0.36.1 released November 5th 2008 lincity: The current stable release of lincity is version 1.12.1 (Aug. 13, 2004) tin: TIN 1.9.5 (unstable) was released on December 24th, 2009 Looks like a bunch of creeeeepy software.
pure-ftpd: Server -- if you use it, you must know how to build it. tsch: Well, it's like back to the future, only in reverse, right?
BTW, games under linux just... well... hmmm.
Just because a software is old it doesn't mean that it doesn't work or isn't used anymore. Well, I must admit that I don't know tcsh, but that's only one of them. Like I said, I had no problem with really unimportant or unnecessary packages or with packages which don't run anymore without being patched. But packages which still run like eboard and are just a bit older don't need to be actively maintained. So I don't know the problem with keeping them in [extra] as orphans. Heiko
On Sat 13 Nov 2010 15:23 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:46:30 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:
I adopted some (and edited the page). Nice, today we have 291 orphans packages in [extra] (they were 352
On Thursday 11 November 2010 22:54:36 Roman Kyrylych wrote: three days ago). 62 will be moved to [community]. 127 to AUR.
I didn't expect this success. I can start moving them today if you agree.
Nice, then I would need to install 110 packages from AUR and compile them manually. When I switched to Arch Linux about 3 years ago it was less than 50.
When will the so called "binary distribution" Arch Linux become a second Gentoo, a pure source based distribution, because "no developer is interested in maintaining" anything anymore? Btw., PKGBUILDs also in AUR need to be maintained.
Really sad this progress and this massive and pointless cleanup.
You really should reconsider this cleanup. You should consider that such a distribution - and Arch Linux isn't a small and unimportant distro anymore - is not only about some personal preferences of the developers. Developers of such a binary distro should also maintain packages which they are not using themselves.
Sorry, Heiko. I don't think you properly understand Arch culture here. If you want something done you are expected to contribute and put forth your own effort to make it happen. The TUs and Devs cannot be expected to be your personal support team and maintain hundreds of packages that you're particularly interested in unless you're willing to compensate them for their time. Their time is much more valuable than that. Just like your time is too valuable to do it yourself. I'd rather maintainers be forthcoming and allow users to maintain packages that they can't properly support rather than carrying a burden that may be harmful or stressful.
I wouldn't say anything if you would cleanup the official repos from unnecessary, unimportant and unused or hardly used packages like some ttf fonts, GTK1 themes, etc. But there are too many, too important packages in your list which definitely belong into the official binary repos and which are in the official binary repos of every other binary distribution.
Arch is not just 'another binary distro'. It's a distro for those who contribute. If other people can benefit from that work - that's great! Cheers
Am Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:18:02 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
Sorry, Heiko. I don't think you properly understand Arch culture here. If you want something done you are expected to contribute and put forth your own effort to make it happen. The TUs and Devs cannot be expected to be your personal support team and maintain hundreds of packages that you're particularly interested in unless you're willing to compensate them for their time. Their time is much more valuable than that.
I don't speak about "my personal support team". If there are a few packages I personally like to use which are not in the repos I don't say anything. I always used packages from AUR and I never said anything against it. But if those packages are getting more over time (in my personal case it was from less than 50 to now more than 100 in 3 years), because they are just moved from the binary repos to AUR, and if there are packages which are not really unimportant - not only from my personal point of view, and I'm not using all of those packages which shall be moved to AUR now - then I say something, because I don't think that this is right development of a distro. And the importance of a package is not measured by how much some developers or one single user are interested in or using it. It's rather measured by how many users are using them, how popular they are, by how many other projects they are recommended etc. Just a few examples. And some of these packages which shall be moved to AUR are e.g. on the list of recommended applications in the Xfce wiki. I don't think that those packages are so unimportant. So it's not my personal preferences. I try to see it from a quite objective point of view. And I have nothing against cleaning up a repo. But this should be done more considered. Means only unimportant, unpopular packages or packages which don't run anymore should be moved to AUR or removed completely but not packages which likely belong to the most popular ones. Heiko
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
And I have nothing against cleaning up a repo. But this should be done more considered. Means only unimportant, unpopular packages or packages which don't run anymore should be moved to AUR or removed completely but not packages which likely belong to the most popular ones.
Heiko
'Important' is defined from the perspective of the devs and TUs. I'm a relative new-comer, but honestly the packages you mentioned I've never even heard of, much less used. Of course the packages *I* use are important, but only to *me*. Its not really a good idea to extrapolate that to *generally important*
At Samstag, 13. November 2010 17:32 Heiko Baums wrote:
And I have nothing against cleaning up a repo. But this should be done more considered. Means only unimportant, unpopular packages or packages which don't run anymore should be moved to AUR or removed completely but not packages which likely belong to the most popular ones.
+1 For to consider more. With only a message with the link to a wiki list it is very easy to oversee something and more important there is no information about to what for a certain time it will be done. I have not anything against having more (or less) applications from aur but i was a little bit surprised as my favorite editor for the console joe get throwed out of extra. So i ask for the possibility of having a RSS Feed (or a web page) with at examples such lines 2010-11-10 joe -> OLD REPO: EXTRA NEW REPO: AUR 2010-11-10 appXYZ -> OLD REPO: EXTRA NEW REPO: NULL 2010-11-12 libXYZ -> OLD REPO: COMMUNITY NEW REPO: EXTRA Is there any change that this could realize without too much extra cost? See you, Attila
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Attila <vodoo0904@sonnenkinder.org> wrote:
At Samstag, 13. November 2010 17:32 Heiko Baums wrote:
And I have nothing against cleaning up a repo. But this should be done more considered. Means only unimportant, unpopular packages or packages which don't run anymore should be moved to AUR or removed completely but not packages which likely belong to the most popular ones.
+1 For to consider more. With only a message with the link to a wiki list it is very easy to oversee something and more important there is no information about to what for a certain time it will be done.
I have not anything against having more (or less) applications from aur but i was a little bit surprised as my favorite editor for the console joe get throwed out of extra.
So i ask for the possibility of having a RSS Feed (or a web page) with at examples such lines
2010-11-10 joe -> OLD REPO: EXTRA NEW REPO: AUR 2010-11-10 appXYZ -> OLD REPO: EXTRA NEW REPO: NULL 2010-11-12 libXYZ -> OLD REPO: COMMUNITY NEW REPO: EXTRA
Is there any change that this could realize without too much extra cost?
See you, Attila
There's already RSS feeds with that information (maybe not as compact as you want) : http://aur.archlinux.org/rss.php http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/packages/?op=rss&isdir=1 http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/?op=rss&isdir=1
At Sonntag, 14. November 2010 22:07 Eric Bélanger wrote:
There's already RSS feeds with that information (maybe not as compact as you want) :
http://aur.archlinux.org/rss.php http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/packages/?op=rss&isdir=1 http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/?op=rss&isdir=1
Thanks a lot. I don't know about number 2 and 3 but this informations be very helpfull ( and more than i want but i said 'without too much extra cost' :) ). See you, Attila
I know I'm crossposting this, but this rather belongs to arch-general than to aur-general. Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:40 -0500 schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com>:
I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves.
Why should those packages be removed from the repos as long as they are running? That doesn't make sense. And such packages doesn't make any work for the developers. They can just be staying in the repos without doing any harm like e.g. eboard. Regarding ding as an example doesn't make much work for the devs because it's updated by upstream every two years. And this package is really popular at least in Germany, because it's an English-German dictionary. And this tool is really old - but not outdated and unmainted. It's one of the first Linux applications and available in every repo of every distro. And the question is not cleaning up the repos in principle. The question is this mass cleanup and the removal of several popular and important packages even if they are orphaned. If there's an orphan quite popular then an unorphaned packages which is not popular or important could be moved to AUR and the orphaned and more popular package could be adopted by this dev. Just an example. squashfs-tools are necessary for building LiveCDs incl. the Arch Linux installation CD as far as I know. So I'm not sure if this package actually wouldn't belong to [core]. btrfs-progs also doesn't belong to AUR. This package belongs into [core] and should be supported by AIF. Even if it's still marked as experimental, many people in the web report that it's pretty stable and that it's only missing an fsck. And many people report that it's usable on systems which don't need to be absolutely reliable. Btw., instead of the stable package btrfs-progs there's a package btrfs-progs-unstable in [extra] which really makes sense as the repos are meant to be stable repos. eboard, a still working and good chess GUI, was moved from [extra] to AUR. It's not maintained by upstream anymore but it's still working, it's quite popular and doesn't make any work for the devs. Having this in [extra] means there's a compiled and working package which doesn't need to be maintained. Having this package in AUR means that every user who wants to install this package must compile this package by himself. So what sense does this cleanup make? It makes completely no sense! epdfviewer is a very popular because lightweight PDF viewer for GTK. Galculator is the best calculator for GTK I know and also quite popular, at lest recommended quite often e.g. in the Xfce wiki. What's such a package doing in AUR? And, please, don't tell me anything about missing interest of the devs. As if every dev is using every package which he maintains himself or every dev only maintains only packages he is using himself. This is what I name and shame. This mass cleanup was just done inconsiderately. I really respect the voluntary work of the devs and TUs. And I really honor their work in their spare time. And I don't expect too much. But if a repo shall be cleaned up this must be done a lot more considered. Heiko
I know I'm crossposting this, but this rather belongs to arch-general than to aur-general.
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:40 -0500 schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com>:
I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves.
Why should those packages be removed from the repos as long as they are running? That doesn't make sense. And such packages doesn't make any work for the developers. They can just be staying in the repos without doing any harm like e.g. eboard. You got my point.
Regarding ding as an example doesn't make much work for the devs because it's updated by upstream every two years. And this package is really popular at least in Germany, because it's an English-German dictionary. And this tool is really old - but not outdated and unmainted. It's one of the first Linux applications and available in every repo of every distro.
And the question is not cleaning up the repos in principle. The question is this mass cleanup and the removal of several popular and important packages even if they are orphaned.
If there's an orphan quite popular then an unorphaned packages which is not popular or important could be moved to AUR and the orphaned and more popular package could be adopted by this dev. Just an example.
squashfs-tools are necessary for building LiveCDs incl. the Arch Linux installation CD as far as I know. So I'm not sure if this package actually wouldn't belong to [core].
btrfs-progs also doesn't belong to AUR. This package belongs into [core] and should be supported by AIF. Even if it's still marked as experimental, many people in the web report that it's pretty stable and that it's only missing an fsck. And many people report that it's usable on systems which don't need to be absolutely reliable.
Btw., instead of the stable package btrfs-progs there's a package btrfs-progs-unstable in [extra] which really makes sense as the repos are meant to be stable repos.
eboard, a still working and good chess GUI, was moved from [extra] to AUR. It's not maintained by upstream anymore but it's still working, it's quite popular and doesn't make any work for the devs. Having this in [extra] means there's a compiled and working package which doesn't need to be maintained. Having this package in AUR means that every user who wants to install this package must compile this package by himself. So what sense does this cleanup make? It makes completely no sense!
epdfviewer is a very popular because lightweight PDF viewer for GTK. Galculator is the best calculator for GTK I know and also quite popular, at lest recommended quite often e.g. in the Xfce wiki. What's such a package doing in AUR?
And, please, don't tell me anything about missing interest of the devs. As if every dev is using every package which he maintains himself or every dev only maintains only packages he is using himself.
This is what I name and shame.
This mass cleanup was just done inconsiderately.
I really respect the voluntary work of the devs and TUs. And I really honor their work in their spare time. And I don't expect too much. But if a repo shall be cleaned up this must be done a lot more considered. We are practical people, aren't we? Please reconsider this cleanup,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote: thanks. I don't mean it's bad, but please reconsider some.
Heiko
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, 甘露(Gan Lu) <rhythm.gan@gmail.com> wrote:
I know I'm crossposting this, but this rather belongs to arch-general than to aur-general.
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:40 -0500 schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com>:
I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves.
Why should those packages be removed from the repos as long as they are running? That doesn't make sense. And such packages doesn't make any work for the developers. They can just be staying in the repos without doing any harm like e.g. eboard. You got my point.
Regarding ding as an example doesn't make much work for the devs because it's updated by upstream every two years. And this package is really popular at least in Germany, because it's an English-German dictionary. And this tool is really old - but not outdated and unmainted. It's one of the first Linux applications and available in every repo of every distro.
And the question is not cleaning up the repos in principle. The question is this mass cleanup and the removal of several popular and important packages even if they are orphaned.
If there's an orphan quite popular then an unorphaned packages which is not popular or important could be moved to AUR and the orphaned and more popular package could be adopted by this dev. Just an example.
squashfs-tools are necessary for building LiveCDs incl. the Arch Linux installation CD as far as I know. So I'm not sure if this package actually wouldn't belong to [core].
btrfs-progs also doesn't belong to AUR. This package belongs into [core] and should be supported by AIF. Even if it's still marked as experimental, many people in the web report that it's pretty stable and that it's only missing an fsck. And many people report that it's usable on systems which don't need to be absolutely reliable.
Btw., instead of the stable package btrfs-progs there's a package btrfs-progs-unstable in [extra] which really makes sense as the repos are meant to be stable repos.
eboard, a still working and good chess GUI, was moved from [extra] to AUR. It's not maintained by upstream anymore but it's still working, it's quite popular and doesn't make any work for the devs. Having this in [extra] means there's a compiled and working package which doesn't need to be maintained. Having this package in AUR means that every user who wants to install this package must compile this package by himself. So what sense does this cleanup make? It makes completely no sense!
epdfviewer is a very popular because lightweight PDF viewer for GTK. Galculator is the best calculator for GTK I know and also quite popular, at lest recommended quite often e.g. in the Xfce wiki. What's such a package doing in AUR?
And, please, don't tell me anything about missing interest of the devs. As if every dev is using every package which he maintains himself or every dev only maintains only packages he is using himself.
This is what I name and shame.
This mass cleanup was just done inconsiderately.
I really respect the voluntary work of the devs and TUs. And I really honor their work in their spare time. And I don't expect too much. But if a repo shall be cleaned up this must be done a lot more considered. We are practical people, aren't we? Please reconsider this cleanup,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote: thanks. I don't mean it's bad, but please reconsider some.
Five step plan to success: 1) Actually contribute instead of whining on a mailing list 2) Get your name known in the TU/dev circles 3) Apply for a position where you can contribute more 4) Have your opinion actually count because we know you do work instead of act as a roadblock 5) Become jaded like the rest of us, realizing that users always think the world is ending, and when they say "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", none of the developers have ever really cared and would rather poisonous people leave anyway. Because I enjoy getting things done, I'm now done with arch-general, and I know several other devs have unsubscribed as of late because of the useless traffic and emails like this one. Add me to that list. -Dan
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, 甘露(Gan Lu) <rhythm.gan@gmail.com> wrote:
I know I'm crossposting this, but this rather belongs to arch-general than to aur-general.
Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:40 -0500 schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com>:
I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves.
Why should those packages be removed from the repos as long as they are running? That doesn't make sense. And such packages doesn't make any work for the developers. They can just be staying in the repos without doing any harm like e.g. eboard. You got my point.
Regarding ding as an example doesn't make much work for the devs because it's updated by upstream every two years. And this package is really popular at least in Germany, because it's an English-German dictionary. And this tool is really old - but not outdated and unmainted. It's one of the first Linux applications and available in every repo of every distro.
And the question is not cleaning up the repos in principle. The question is this mass cleanup and the removal of several popular and important packages even if they are orphaned.
If there's an orphan quite popular then an unorphaned packages which is not popular or important could be moved to AUR and the orphaned and more popular package could be adopted by this dev. Just an example.
squashfs-tools are necessary for building LiveCDs incl. the Arch Linux installation CD as far as I know. So I'm not sure if this package actually wouldn't belong to [core].
btrfs-progs also doesn't belong to AUR. This package belongs into [core] and should be supported by AIF. Even if it's still marked as experimental, many people in the web report that it's pretty stable and that it's only missing an fsck. And many people report that it's usable on systems which don't need to be absolutely reliable.
Btw., instead of the stable package btrfs-progs there's a package btrfs-progs-unstable in [extra] which really makes sense as the repos are meant to be stable repos.
eboard, a still working and good chess GUI, was moved from [extra] to AUR. It's not maintained by upstream anymore but it's still working, it's quite popular and doesn't make any work for the devs. Having this in [extra] means there's a compiled and working package which doesn't need to be maintained. Having this package in AUR means that every user who wants to install this package must compile this package by himself. So what sense does this cleanup make? It makes completely no sense!
epdfviewer is a very popular because lightweight PDF viewer for GTK. Galculator is the best calculator for GTK I know and also quite popular, at lest recommended quite often e.g. in the Xfce wiki. What's such a package doing in AUR?
And, please, don't tell me anything about missing interest of the devs. As if every dev is using every package which he maintains himself or every dev only maintains only packages he is using himself.
This is what I name and shame.
This mass cleanup was just done inconsiderately.
I really respect the voluntary work of the devs and TUs. And I really honor their work in their spare time. And I don't expect too much. But if a repo shall be cleaned up this must be done a lot more considered. We are practical people, aren't we? Please reconsider this cleanup,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote: thanks. I don't mean it's bad, but please reconsider some.
Five step plan to success: 1) Actually contribute instead of whining on a mailing list Yes, I see your point and I support it. The following statement makes me think that do you judge contribution by only if I or other are a TU or dev? How do you know we are not contributing because I or others are not a TU/dev. Anyone has his/her expertise. 2) Get your name known in the TU/dev circles 3) Apply for a position where you can contribute more 4) Have your opinion actually count because we know you do work instead of act as a roadblock 5) Become jaded like the rest of us, realizing that users always think the world is ending, and when they say "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", none of the developers have ever really cared and would rather poisonous people leave anyway. If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote: them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think you are?
Because I enjoy getting things done, I'm now done with arch-general, and I know several other devs have unsubscribed as of late because of the useless traffic and emails like this one. Add me to that list.
-Dan
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:37:41 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote:
If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think you are? A tester.
-- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:47 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:37:41 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote:
If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think you are? A tester.
I lol-ed. And Gan Lu, I'm not sure which thread you've been following, but Heiko specifically references something along the lines of "I may as well go back to Gentoo". In the end this just sounds like "I'm going to whine because MY packages got deprecated". Repeatedly I see unfounded statements like 'popular and important packages'. Something like firefox or gcc is popular and important. The rest is niche. If the devs want to maintain them, fine, there's rules for that. If not, just go and compile it. It moves the burden of work to the person who cares about the package (which is obviously not the dev).
Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:01:11 +0800 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:
And Gan Lu, I'm not sure which thread you've been following, but Heiko specifically references something along the lines of "I may as well go back to Gentoo".
Have you really read only this half sentence? Or have you read all my arguments? And did you understand what I've written? And such half sentences shouldn't be taken out of context. This was definitely not whining. And I wasn't talking about "MY" packages. I was talking in general and objectively. And I've also written that I'm not using all these packages I mentioned. And am I not allowed to saying my opinion anymore? And are devs always right? Or make devs sometimes also mistakes? And, yes, - I've also already written this - I am contributing to Arch Linux even if I'm not a dev or TU. I don't have many, but some packages in AUR and worked on a Wiki page about one of these packages. So I know what maintaining a package means. Heiko
But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility" "Ng Oon-Ee" <ngoonee@gmail.com> schrieb:
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:47 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:37:41 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote:
If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think you are? A tester.
I lol-ed.
And Gan Lu, I'm not sure which thread you've been following, but Heiko specifically references something along the lines of "I may as well go back to Gentoo".
In the end this just sounds like "I'm going to whine because MY packages got deprecated". Repeatedly I see unfounded statements like 'popular and important packages'. Something like firefox or gcc is popular and important. The rest is niche. If the devs want to maintain them, fine, there's rules for that. If not, just go and compile it. It moves the burden of work to the person who cares about the package (which is obviously not the dev).
-- This message has been sent from my android phone with k-9 mail
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:27, Harlequin <harlequix@googlemail.com> wrote:
The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility"
Then step up and do something. Make this repository. It would make no difference to have a 3rd party repo with unsupported packages is in it than another "official" repo without any official support, except it would seem totally unprofessional. -- János
----- Original message -----
But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility" You are talking about something that already has been done. Anyway, is exactly that: we take no more responsability about those packages.
-- Andrea Scarpino Sent from Nokia N900
Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:41:01 -0600 schrieb Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
Five step plan to success: 1) Actually contribute instead of whining on a mailing list
Is saying one's opinion whining? How long since? And, yes, I am already contributing in AUR, I've already written a split PKGBUILD for libreoffice-i18n which Andreas hopefully will add to [extra] soon. And I've already written a cryptsetup related patch for rc.sysinit which I sent to Thomas. So I don't think that I'm not contributing.
2) Get your name known in the TU/dev circles
I already met some devs and a TU personally. And I don't think that they had the impression that I'm whining. Instead we had some nice conversations.
3) Apply for a position where you can contribute more
As soon as it's possible.
4) Have your opinion actually count because we know you do work instead of act as a roadblock
Some people know that I'm already working if possible.
5) Become jaded like the rest of us, realizing that users always think the world is ending, and when they say "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", none of the developers have ever really cared and would rather poisonous people leave anyway.
I never said "I'm leaving" or something like that. That some developers are selfish is indeed my impression. Read: Some. By far not every developer. Heiko
participants (12)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Attila
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Harlequin
-
Heiko Baums
-
János Illés
-
Leonid Isaev
-
Loui Chang
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
甘露(Gan Lu)