About AUR accreditation policy
Hello foks, I tell you, about 8 hours ago a package that Radu C. Martin and I were maintaining (textpieces) was moved from the AUR to extra. In this movement (which seems perfect to us, every package officially maintained is welcome and better than this in the AUR) our names have disappeared[1]. I don't want you to misunderstand me, I'm not crying foul about this, but it doesn't seem fair to me that the person (or persons) who kept the package for a while until it became official is not credited. If we in the AUR keep the names of those who preceded us in the maintenance of the package, I understand that when a package moves from the AUR to an official repository the same should happen. This happens when a package is dropped to AUR. I don't know if there is a directive for this, but if not, maybe it's time to write one. And as I said, I don't mind that my name doesn't appear as a contributor right now (I keep my AUR packages for myself and for people to benefit from it, not for fame or similar nonsense), but I do find it a bit ugly that the effort involved in doing that work is not recognized, and not by me, but by everyone. Greetings. PS: I would not want accusations or ugly things to come out of this. I just want to note that there should be a policy that the AUR maintainer's work should be credited when a package is moved to an official repository. [1]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/textpieces/-/blob/... -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
but it doesn't seem fair to me that the person (or persons) who kept the package for a while until it became official is not credited.
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work. I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person you are. Greetings. [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi... -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? "If you are assuming the role of maintainer for an existing PKGBUILD"
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so. They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos. Martin On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@moire.org> wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it?
I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work.
I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person you are.
Greetings.
[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...
-- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so.
They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos. Let's consider this scenario:
1. An enthusiastic and dedicated AUR package maintainer has been diligently maintaining a package. 2. One day, he wakes up to find that the package he maintains has been incorporated into the official repository, while the AUR repository he maintained has been disabled. 3. Since his PKGBUILD was not reused, his name does not appear in the maintainer list (which is understandable). 4. However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed. If the process described above is how AUR packages are transitioned into the official repository, I find it to be unfair. Whether the contributions of a contributor are recorded should not depend on whether the official team has reused their work. I believe the community should encourage members to contribute and express gratitude to those contributors, while also recording their contributions in some way. It's like this: "Hey Maintainer X, we really appreciate your hard work on Package Y. Now, it's time for Y to make the move to the official repository. Even though we're not adopting your work directly, we want to make sure your efforts are recognized. Here's a shout-out to your dedication: [some link|some wiki page|a special mention in PKGBUILD|...] Thank you for your contribution." regards, -- L.Y On 2024/10/22 01:07, Martin Rys wrote:
conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? "If you are assuming the role of maintainer for an existing PKGBUILD"
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so.
They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos.
Martin
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@moire.org> wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it?
I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work.
I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person you are.
Greetings.
[1]:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...
-- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
I agree with Ling Yang. Some of us pour our hearts out into maintaining packages on the AUR, and it is really unfair to dismiss our invested time and effort just because our PKGBUILDs weren't used as a base when adopting the package. A little appreciation goes a LONG way! -- txtsd https://ihavea.quest On 10/22/24 9:32 AM, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so.
They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos. Let's consider this scenario:
1. An enthusiastic and dedicated AUR package maintainer has been diligently maintaining a package. 2. One day, he wakes up to find that the package he maintains has been incorporated into the official repository, while the AUR repository he maintained has been disabled. 3. Since his PKGBUILD was not reused, his name does not appear in the maintainer list (which is understandable). 4. However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed.
If the process described above is how AUR packages are transitioned into the official repository, I find it to be unfair.
Whether the contributions of a contributor are recorded should not depend on whether the official team has reused their work.
I believe the community should encourage members to contribute and express gratitude to those contributors, while also recording their contributions in some way.
It's like this: "Hey Maintainer X, we really appreciate your hard work on Package Y. Now, it's time for Y to make the move to the official repository. Even though we're not adopting your work directly, we want to make sure your efforts are recognized. Here's a shout-out to your dedication: [some link|some wiki page|a special mention in PKGBUILD|...] Thank you for your contribution."
regards, -- L.Y
On 2024/10/22 01:07, Martin Rys wrote:
conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? "If you are assuming the role of maintainer for an existing PKGBUILD"
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so.
They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos.
Martin
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@moire.org> wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it?
I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work.
I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person you are.
Greetings.
AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission
-- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
El lun, 21-10-2024 a las 19:07 +0200, Martin Rys escribió:
Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so. They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos.
That answer would validate my previous statement: "By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainer(s)." Which, from my point of view, is unfair to the previous maintainer(s). El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) escribió:
I believe the community should encourage members to contribute and express gratitude to those contributors, while also recording their contributions in some way.
This is exactly what I am talking about, recognizing people's work. Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed.
Hi, far too much importance is attached to this point. For example, take a look at an important official package. Although the names of the contributors and maintainers should be familiar to anyone who has been using Arch Linux for a long time, hardly anyone will have taken a look at the PKGBUILD. Regards, Ralf
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 09:35, Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> wrote:
far too much importance is attached to this point. For example, take a look at an important official package. Although the names of the contributors and maintainers should be familiar to anyone who has been using Arch Linux for a long time, hardly anyone will have taken a look at the PKGBUILD.
That, I feel is a strawman argument.
On October 22, 2024 10:34:58 AM GMT+02:00, Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed.
Hi,
far too much importance is attached to this point. For example, take a look at an important official package. Although the names of the contributors and maintainers should be familiar to anyone who has been using Arch Linux for a long time, hardly anyone will have taken a look at the PKGBUILD.
Regards, Ralf
Employers do like to see open source contributions and I could see it being useful when applying for a position.
I think that at minimum even an automated email with "Hey the package you maintained on AUR is now in extra/blah, your repository or parts of it may or may not have been used, thank you for your contributions!" sent to the Maintainer and Co-Maintainers of the package at the time would go a long way and would have zero controversy. Some of my things were adapted and I was confused and had to spend time figuring out what happened that could have been used elsewhere. Martin On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:45 AM Shawn Michaels <shawn_michaels@gmx.ch> wrote:
On October 22, 2024 10:34:58 AM GMT+02:00, Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed.
Hi,
far too much importance is attached to this point. For example, take a look at an important official package. Although the names of the contributors and maintainers should be familiar to anyone who has been using Arch Linux for a long time, hardly anyone will have taken a look at the PKGBUILD.
Regards, Ralf
Employers do like to see open source contributions and I could see it being useful when applying for a position.
Hi L.Y,
1. An enthusiastic and dedicated AUR package maintainer has been diligently maintaining a package. 2. One day, he wakes up to find that the package he maintains has been incorporated into the official repository, while the AUR repository he maintained has been disabled.
Can the decision to add an official repository package be influenced by the popularity of its AUR predecessor? If so, enabling that show of popularity is another contribution of the AUR packager. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Hello Amor, would you mind confirming whether you made this AUR package before offical repository adotped it. If not, just ignore the following things.
The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications **already** in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances.
This is what the wiki says.
They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when software already exists in official repos.
Martin
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@moire.org> wrote:
I don't understand how 1. The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications **already** in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances. 2. It is custom when software **already** exists in official repos should be deleted can infer that it is reasonable to delete the AUR package in this situation. I think this logic is wrong and this description makes no sense to deny what Amor requests. If it is just because the crediting is not explicitly documented, so we don't have to do this, (It does not mean your logic is right, either) I think it's time for us to start a discussion on this. At least, I think we should add a *recommendation* in documentation on crediting the AUR maintaner. I think this is the actual **custom** of open source software. I don't know why adding a credit is unnecessary in logic. Not to mention in emotion, which I think matters much more than any logic in this case (I admit I'm very unprofessional on this). Whatever, I vote on making a credit to AUR maintainers, who made contribution to who ever used it and now his work is totally swiped on the website. Because I get happier to use their AUR.
El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 18:30 +0800, crupest escribió:
Hello Amor, would you mind confirming whether you made this AUR package before offical repository adotped it.
Yes, as I commented at the beginning of the thread, Radu C. Martin and I maintained the textpieces package. In any case, this is not the most important thing. IMHO, it's just that I think there should be some kind of policy about this so that the work done by someone else before you is credited. Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
In any case, this is not the most important thing. IMHO, it's just that I think there should be some kind of policy about this so that the work done by someone else before you is credited.
The most important thing is exactly what you said. But the reason why I sent that email is that I think some people, who are good at technology things, sometimes make logical mistake in emotional things. I don't think this is a very good thing. At least, for me, this is kind of annoying, especially in your case. You made contributions, and they use a wrong logic pointing out you don't have to be credited.
Hi, On 21/10/2024 17:09, Óscar García Amor wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for.
By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it?
I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work.
And I agree that Arch packagers should do this, we want to get more people to become a package maintainer and the AUR is good starting ground to get recognized for your work.
I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person you are.
I hope you didn't mean it as harsh as it sounds, everyone makes mistakes or unintended changes which does not imply they meant any harm.
Hi everyone, 22 Oct 2024 11:57:13 Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl>:
Hi,
On 21/10/2024 17:09, Óscar García Amor wrote:
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for you to be credited for. By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió: the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and kept the names before me out of respect for their work.
And I agree that Arch packagers should do this, we want to get more people to become a package maintainer and the AUR is good starting ground to get recognized for your work.
To provide a positive counterexample: My contributor line in https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/swaylock/-/blob/ma... has been present from the moment my PKGBUILD got adopted from the AUR.
El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 10:56 +0200, Jelle van der Waa escribió:
And I agree that Arch packagers should do this, we want to get more people to become a package maintainer and the AUR is good starting ground to get recognized for your work.
Completely agree.
I hope you didn't mean it as harsh as it sounds, everyone makes mistakes or unintended changes which does not imply they meant any harm.
I didn't mean to sound harsh (and I apologize for that). And obviously I agree with you that everyone has lapses and makes mistakes. But let me also say that there are certain mistakes that an official package maintainer should not make (with great power comes great responsibility). :-) Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
Hi, On 10/19/24 3:19 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
Hello foks,
I tell you, about 8 hours ago a package that Radu C. Martin and I were maintaining (textpieces) was moved from the AUR to extra. In this movement (which seems perfect to us, every package officially maintained is welcome and better than this in the AUR) our names have disappeared[1].
I don't want you to misunderstand me, I'm not crying foul about this, but it doesn't seem fair to me that the person (or persons) who kept the package for a while until it became official is not credited.
If we in the AUR keep the names of those who preceded us in the maintenance of the package, I understand that when a package moves from the AUR to an official repository the same should happen. This happens when a package is dropped to AUR.
I don't know if there is a directive for this, but if not, maybe it's time to write one.
And as I said, I don't mind that my name doesn't appear as a contributor right now (I keep my AUR packages for myself and for people to benefit from it, not for fame or similar nonsense), but I do find it a bit ugly that the effort involved in doing that work is not recognized, and not by me, but by everyone.
Greetings.
PS: I would not want accusations or ugly things to come out of this. I just want to note that there should be a policy that the AUR maintainer's work should be credited when a package is moved to an official repository.
[1]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/textpieces/-/blob/...
I agree with this. I experienced the same feeling multiple times when the packages I've been maintaining for a significant amount of time were moved to the Arch Linux official repos without acknowledgment or a simple "thank you." It felt a bit rude, to be honest. If you had asked me at that time, I would have agreed to continue maintaining those packages on the Arch Linux official repos. I think Arch Linux maintainers should consider asking AUR maintainers if they want to continue maintaining the packages in the official repos. Constantly, Arch Linux is in need of additional package maintainers. The AUR package may not adhere to all Arch Linux packaging guidelines, but a GitLab review process to "graduate" the package will aid in this regard. » Javier Tia 🖋
participants (13)
-
Andy Pieters
-
crupest
-
Doug Newgard
-
Gilbus
-
Javier Tia
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Ling Yang(杨令)
-
Martin Rys
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Ralph Corderoy
-
Shawn Michaels
-
txtsd
-
Óscar García Amor