[arch-general] bitcoin-qt out-of-date
Hello, I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/ Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response? Thanks, Diego
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days. Seriously?
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too? Diego
Op 1 sep. 2016 18:00 schreef "Diego Viola via arch-general" < arch-general@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Relax, it was just a funny remark. Arch dev's and TU's are volunteers. I guess (s)he hasn't had an opportunity to update the package yet. Is the current version broken in some way? (Not a dev, just curious). Mvg, Guus Snijders
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Guus Snijders <gsnijders@gmail.com> wrote:
Op 1 sep. 2016 18:00 schreef "Diego Viola via arch-general" <arch-general@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Relax, it was just a funny remark.
Arch dev's and TU's are volunteers. I guess (s)he hasn't had an opportunity to update the package yet.
Is the current version broken in some way? (Not a dev, just curious).
Mvg, Guus Snijders
That's fine, I guess my expectations for some contributions are too high, sorry in any case. Diego
[Topic Closed] On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:14 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Op 1 sep. 2016 18:00 schreef "Diego Viola via arch-general" <arch-general@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Guus Snijders <gsnijders@gmail.com> wrote: trying
to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Relax, it was just a funny remark.
Arch dev's and TU's are volunteers. I guess (s)he hasn't had an opportunity to update the package yet.
Is the current version broken in some way? (Not a dev, just curious).
Mvg, Guus Snijders
That's fine, I guess my expectations for some contributions are too high, sorry in any case.
Diego
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Guus Snijders <gsnijders@gmail.com> wrote:
Op 1 sep. 2016 18:00 schreef "Diego Viola via arch-general" <arch-general@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Relax, it was just a funny remark.
Arch dev's and TU's are volunteers. I guess (s)he hasn't had an opportunity to update the package yet.
Is the current version broken in some way? (Not a dev, just curious).
Mvg, Guus Snijders
It's not broken, I simply need some things that are available in 0.13. Diego
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
Some people don't get the concept of volunteering lol. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
-- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2 mQENBFOa9oMBCACc0vf5MZEKqfyCWw3foRhYqM3zL9zmIuDpLxGZ11BM6dLvTKVG xets5b2RZX+aPUbASnLFZWqANW2d5K+O7PNkvwKk7jJGu951WQkd1HGNHqQekb3Y SC6AOIt5G4Iu3xuJdbh8vuSU0tRIU3YVKSIWFCxgdTWO3XukgNYB1ncl39x4VGPh OsQ8ErsLfVMCwO7q4eTTv89HQZEzvCI+BhMlw0bjViBeMe+4ZfYuiFJp9SyZBcTY rVkdnn5gVOeqhU1eAk4uieG1t/anGm3GQ6NVDnh/+k6in6SwSZ2jAUXQluCMmyNA aCOCz7G4kytg8qel3VvT4YuI7hFQxcg17DMnABEBAAG0HURvcmlhbiA8Y2FtZW5z Y2hpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQE/BBMBAgApBQJTmvaDAhsDBQkFo5qABwsJCAcDAgEG FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQugwP0JaXCVNyvAf/Z9gAtGh4SSxNv0/CWFxL d5P6ikr8qGD9sVuH1QZa90zigmhAngfQyMF0DuPVnRTcVu0pwFObkvdI0/11UaSj Rdst9sPFV5b4wfLfGw4MinO9vTD7RQoLisnggaroNk98I894lvgtVWECxHYdPnW+ VJWNONAfTOUjfqPVV7B2A35N4DxkgBM0VNdqpcd0Qj6acEaGRcGBlQUyssy+NYEr 5+nS9c58eM9wqxkcaWy2axrX2vvQth5PedGjZl53gsR3cSWLpFmyryyyVi2da4rv IFLdhZaZfWyRG7y0MTnPdi8NRwBO33r2UX0W+BC8VvGBjob17EgCZT06QHGzAs9F fLkBDQRTmvaDAQgA2p9RwuEWF16nWkc+z/5Vu6KlQh9paxw1zEHlmC+r103tWby8 27BLocuD7hKqcweuu17HL0LW1iSYfhr/iXDOTiJ5LsKXtBMYAVXbhamLKNOuHTO1 qFdA55f6vtY/eMdWQ8qM+q31cLX0WYiQdsGonuIzqeIXETnmq9rx7fRaxpvv6K4Y 0u9N1NFwrpz2eOuIX/KFicoZs1tGID5OjnL2QB897za8i56oKjHFwNzZCndESc3h 78HXNzu7XMjRQHN8QvwybpWhtDanLd/3ZFvHMViZT9Zo2KAMsCgPNkqDe9SXrrEC vEYgZn0QO3Akrk1FmmzCCgMzP3F9l3czBNK7mwARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJTmvaD AhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJELoMD9CWlwlTfKQH/2UsN6WgoyMGgRFm+INdAT8/ew4r30l5 mTMKuAfpLs9lbIfeRJoq2+HtKsv8MNzYYCR595tdI9kTijhD0RKKhEfacBLIZFvZ 0j5SLaR+PC7Ky+KAIXIIZnrHsFAQR21Hup0POxuWeuvs0pfcFWTnNEb6cZHzTP7J YnUA/khgamUK/uWWymKxOsgR5A/zzHrjnWgMws7vKi7Kd0gvr2t/X393iAxvfUqT IGiSx+fq/bGB8uyTuQPFpaDRNMo7k2knzQzt4idSKz89tejWyimS71QdnmPWJP84 OTnHUaGQdQamnAQqh5g3GC6XqS57apLQZx+7Y7WUpPjeX/+vQ2GtzuE= =RFjZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Exactly On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:08 D C via arch-general, <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people don't get the concept of volunteering lol.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote: trying
to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
-- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2
mQENBFOa9oMBCACc0vf5MZEKqfyCWw3foRhYqM3zL9zmIuDpLxGZ11BM6dLvTKVG xets5b2RZX+aPUbASnLFZWqANW2d5K+O7PNkvwKk7jJGu951WQkd1HGNHqQekb3Y SC6AOIt5G4Iu3xuJdbh8vuSU0tRIU3YVKSIWFCxgdTWO3XukgNYB1ncl39x4VGPh OsQ8ErsLfVMCwO7q4eTTv89HQZEzvCI+BhMlw0bjViBeMe+4ZfYuiFJp9SyZBcTY rVkdnn5gVOeqhU1eAk4uieG1t/anGm3GQ6NVDnh/+k6in6SwSZ2jAUXQluCMmyNA aCOCz7G4kytg8qel3VvT4YuI7hFQxcg17DMnABEBAAG0HURvcmlhbiA8Y2FtZW5z Y2hpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQE/BBMBAgApBQJTmvaDAhsDBQkFo5qABwsJCAcDAgEG FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQugwP0JaXCVNyvAf/Z9gAtGh4SSxNv0/CWFxL d5P6ikr8qGD9sVuH1QZa90zigmhAngfQyMF0DuPVnRTcVu0pwFObkvdI0/11UaSj Rdst9sPFV5b4wfLfGw4MinO9vTD7RQoLisnggaroNk98I894lvgtVWECxHYdPnW+ VJWNONAfTOUjfqPVV7B2A35N4DxkgBM0VNdqpcd0Qj6acEaGRcGBlQUyssy+NYEr 5+nS9c58eM9wqxkcaWy2axrX2vvQth5PedGjZl53gsR3cSWLpFmyryyyVi2da4rv IFLdhZaZfWyRG7y0MTnPdi8NRwBO33r2UX0W+BC8VvGBjob17EgCZT06QHGzAs9F fLkBDQRTmvaDAQgA2p9RwuEWF16nWkc+z/5Vu6KlQh9paxw1zEHlmC+r103tWby8 27BLocuD7hKqcweuu17HL0LW1iSYfhr/iXDOTiJ5LsKXtBMYAVXbhamLKNOuHTO1 qFdA55f6vtY/eMdWQ8qM+q31cLX0WYiQdsGonuIzqeIXETnmq9rx7fRaxpvv6K4Y 0u9N1NFwrpz2eOuIX/KFicoZs1tGID5OjnL2QB897za8i56oKjHFwNzZCndESc3h 78HXNzu7XMjRQHN8QvwybpWhtDanLd/3ZFvHMViZT9Zo2KAMsCgPNkqDe9SXrrEC vEYgZn0QO3Akrk1FmmzCCgMzP3F9l3czBNK7mwARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJTmvaD AhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJELoMD9CWlwlTfKQH/2UsN6WgoyMGgRFm+INdAT8/ew4r30l5 mTMKuAfpLs9lbIfeRJoq2+HtKsv8MNzYYCR595tdI9kTijhD0RKKhEfacBLIZFvZ 0j5SLaR+PC7Ky+KAIXIIZnrHsFAQR21Hup0POxuWeuvs0pfcFWTnNEb6cZHzTP7J YnUA/khgamUK/uWWymKxOsgR5A/zzHrjnWgMws7vKi7Kd0gvr2t/X393iAxvfUqT IGiSx+fq/bGB8uyTuQPFpaDRNMo7k2knzQzt4idSKz89tejWyimS71QdnmPWJP84 OTnHUaGQdQamnAQqh5g3GC6XqS57apLQZx+7Y7WUpPjeX/+vQ2GtzuE= =RFjZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:08 PM, D C via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people don't get the concept of volunteering lol.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
-- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2
mQENBFOa9oMBCACc0vf5MZEKqfyCWw3foRhYqM3zL9zmIuDpLxGZ11BM6dLvTKVG xets5b2RZX+aPUbASnLFZWqANW2d5K+O7PNkvwKk7jJGu951WQkd1HGNHqQekb3Y SC6AOIt5G4Iu3xuJdbh8vuSU0tRIU3YVKSIWFCxgdTWO3XukgNYB1ncl39x4VGPh OsQ8ErsLfVMCwO7q4eTTv89HQZEzvCI+BhMlw0bjViBeMe+4ZfYuiFJp9SyZBcTY rVkdnn5gVOeqhU1eAk4uieG1t/anGm3GQ6NVDnh/+k6in6SwSZ2jAUXQluCMmyNA aCOCz7G4kytg8qel3VvT4YuI7hFQxcg17DMnABEBAAG0HURvcmlhbiA8Y2FtZW5z Y2hpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQE/BBMBAgApBQJTmvaDAhsDBQkFo5qABwsJCAcDAgEG FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQugwP0JaXCVNyvAf/Z9gAtGh4SSxNv0/CWFxL d5P6ikr8qGD9sVuH1QZa90zigmhAngfQyMF0DuPVnRTcVu0pwFObkvdI0/11UaSj Rdst9sPFV5b4wfLfGw4MinO9vTD7RQoLisnggaroNk98I894lvgtVWECxHYdPnW+ VJWNONAfTOUjfqPVV7B2A35N4DxkgBM0VNdqpcd0Qj6acEaGRcGBlQUyssy+NYEr 5+nS9c58eM9wqxkcaWy2axrX2vvQth5PedGjZl53gsR3cSWLpFmyryyyVi2da4rv IFLdhZaZfWyRG7y0MTnPdi8NRwBO33r2UX0W+BC8VvGBjob17EgCZT06QHGzAs9F fLkBDQRTmvaDAQgA2p9RwuEWF16nWkc+z/5Vu6KlQh9paxw1zEHlmC+r103tWby8 27BLocuD7hKqcweuu17HL0LW1iSYfhr/iXDOTiJ5LsKXtBMYAVXbhamLKNOuHTO1 qFdA55f6vtY/eMdWQ8qM+q31cLX0WYiQdsGonuIzqeIXETnmq9rx7fRaxpvv6K4Y 0u9N1NFwrpz2eOuIX/KFicoZs1tGID5OjnL2QB897za8i56oKjHFwNzZCndESc3h 78HXNzu7XMjRQHN8QvwybpWhtDanLd/3ZFvHMViZT9Zo2KAMsCgPNkqDe9SXrrEC vEYgZn0QO3Akrk1FmmzCCgMzP3F9l3czBNK7mwARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJTmvaD AhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJELoMD9CWlwlTfKQH/2UsN6WgoyMGgRFm+INdAT8/ew4r30l5 mTMKuAfpLs9lbIfeRJoq2+HtKsv8MNzYYCR595tdI9kTijhD0RKKhEfacBLIZFvZ 0j5SLaR+PC7Ky+KAIXIIZnrHsFAQR21Hup0POxuWeuvs0pfcFWTnNEb6cZHzTP7J YnUA/khgamUK/uWWymKxOsgR5A/zzHrjnWgMws7vKi7Kd0gvr2t/X393iAxvfUqT IGiSx+fq/bGB8uyTuQPFpaDRNMo7k2knzQzt4idSKz89tejWyimS71QdnmPWJP84 OTnHUaGQdQamnAQqh5g3GC6XqS57apLQZx+7Y7WUpPjeX/+vQ2GtzuE= =RFjZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
I get the concept of volunteering just fine, I've been using Linux for as long as I remember and I actually contributed to the Linux kernel itself. Thank you very much. Thing is, I use bitcoin-qt to get paid for work, and I'm not going to put my hard earned money on random AUR packages for this. The reason I trust the package from the repo is that I'm hoping I can verify by signing them in some way, but there's no way I'm using some random AUR package for this. Diego
Random, get your shit from bitcoins site then. :p On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:13 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people don't get the concept of volunteering lol.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:08 PM, D C via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: trying
to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
-- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2
mQENBFOa9oMBCACc0vf5MZEKqfyCWw3foRhYqM3zL9zmIuDpLxGZ11BM6dLvTKVG xets5b2RZX+aPUbASnLFZWqANW2d5K+O7PNkvwKk7jJGu951WQkd1HGNHqQekb3Y SC6AOIt5G4Iu3xuJdbh8vuSU0tRIU3YVKSIWFCxgdTWO3XukgNYB1ncl39x4VGPh OsQ8ErsLfVMCwO7q4eTTv89HQZEzvCI+BhMlw0bjViBeMe+4ZfYuiFJp9SyZBcTY rVkdnn5gVOeqhU1eAk4uieG1t/anGm3GQ6NVDnh/+k6in6SwSZ2jAUXQluCMmyNA aCOCz7G4kytg8qel3VvT4YuI7hFQxcg17DMnABEBAAG0HURvcmlhbiA8Y2FtZW5z Y2hpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQE/BBMBAgApBQJTmvaDAhsDBQkFo5qABwsJCAcDAgEG FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQugwP0JaXCVNyvAf/Z9gAtGh4SSxNv0/CWFxL d5P6ikr8qGD9sVuH1QZa90zigmhAngfQyMF0DuPVnRTcVu0pwFObkvdI0/11UaSj Rdst9sPFV5b4wfLfGw4MinO9vTD7RQoLisnggaroNk98I894lvgtVWECxHYdPnW+ VJWNONAfTOUjfqPVV7B2A35N4DxkgBM0VNdqpcd0Qj6acEaGRcGBlQUyssy+NYEr 5+nS9c58eM9wqxkcaWy2axrX2vvQth5PedGjZl53gsR3cSWLpFmyryyyVi2da4rv IFLdhZaZfWyRG7y0MTnPdi8NRwBO33r2UX0W+BC8VvGBjob17EgCZT06QHGzAs9F fLkBDQRTmvaDAQgA2p9RwuEWF16nWkc+z/5Vu6KlQh9paxw1zEHlmC+r103tWby8 27BLocuD7hKqcweuu17HL0LW1iSYfhr/iXDOTiJ5LsKXtBMYAVXbhamLKNOuHTO1 qFdA55f6vtY/eMdWQ8qM+q31cLX0WYiQdsGonuIzqeIXETnmq9rx7fRaxpvv6K4Y 0u9N1NFwrpz2eOuIX/KFicoZs1tGID5OjnL2QB897za8i56oKjHFwNzZCndESc3h 78HXNzu7XMjRQHN8QvwybpWhtDanLd/3ZFvHMViZT9Zo2KAMsCgPNkqDe9SXrrEC vEYgZn0QO3Akrk1FmmzCCgMzP3F9l3czBNK7mwARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJTmvaD AhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJELoMD9CWlwlTfKQH/2UsN6WgoyMGgRFm+INdAT8/ew4r30l5 mTMKuAfpLs9lbIfeRJoq2+HtKsv8MNzYYCR595tdI9kTijhD0RKKhEfacBLIZFvZ 0j5SLaR+PC7Ky+KAIXIIZnrHsFAQR21Hup0POxuWeuvs0pfcFWTnNEb6cZHzTP7J YnUA/khgamUK/uWWymKxOsgR5A/zzHrjnWgMws7vKi7Kd0gvr2t/X393iAxvfUqT IGiSx+fq/bGB8uyTuQPFpaDRNMo7k2knzQzt4idSKz89tejWyimS71QdnmPWJP84 OTnHUaGQdQamnAQqh5g3GC6XqS57apLQZx+7Y7WUpPjeX/+vQ2GtzuE= =RFjZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
I get the concept of volunteering just fine, I've been using Linux for as long as I remember and I actually contributed to the Linux kernel itself. Thank you very much.
Thing is, I use bitcoin-qt to get paid for work, and I'm not going to put my hard earned money on random AUR packages for this.
The reason I trust the package from the repo is that I'm hoping I can verify by signing them in some way, but there's no way I'm using some random AUR package for this.
Diego
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jeroen Mathon <jeroenmathonmac@gmail.com> wrote:
Random, get your shit from bitcoins site then. :p
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:13 Diego Viola via arch-general, <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:08 PM, D C via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people don't get the concept of volunteering lol.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hello, > > I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been > trying > to contact the maintainer about it, with no response. > > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/ > > Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay > or > lack of response? > > Thanks, > Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
-- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2
mQENBFOa9oMBCACc0vf5MZEKqfyCWw3foRhYqM3zL9zmIuDpLxGZ11BM6dLvTKVG xets5b2RZX+aPUbASnLFZWqANW2d5K+O7PNkvwKk7jJGu951WQkd1HGNHqQekb3Y SC6AOIt5G4Iu3xuJdbh8vuSU0tRIU3YVKSIWFCxgdTWO3XukgNYB1ncl39x4VGPh OsQ8ErsLfVMCwO7q4eTTv89HQZEzvCI+BhMlw0bjViBeMe+4ZfYuiFJp9SyZBcTY rVkdnn5gVOeqhU1eAk4uieG1t/anGm3GQ6NVDnh/+k6in6SwSZ2jAUXQluCMmyNA aCOCz7G4kytg8qel3VvT4YuI7hFQxcg17DMnABEBAAG0HURvcmlhbiA8Y2FtZW5z Y2hpY0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQE/BBMBAgApBQJTmvaDAhsDBQkFo5qABwsJCAcDAgEG FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQugwP0JaXCVNyvAf/Z9gAtGh4SSxNv0/CWFxL d5P6ikr8qGD9sVuH1QZa90zigmhAngfQyMF0DuPVnRTcVu0pwFObkvdI0/11UaSj Rdst9sPFV5b4wfLfGw4MinO9vTD7RQoLisnggaroNk98I894lvgtVWECxHYdPnW+ VJWNONAfTOUjfqPVV7B2A35N4DxkgBM0VNdqpcd0Qj6acEaGRcGBlQUyssy+NYEr 5+nS9c58eM9wqxkcaWy2axrX2vvQth5PedGjZl53gsR3cSWLpFmyryyyVi2da4rv IFLdhZaZfWyRG7y0MTnPdi8NRwBO33r2UX0W+BC8VvGBjob17EgCZT06QHGzAs9F fLkBDQRTmvaDAQgA2p9RwuEWF16nWkc+z/5Vu6KlQh9paxw1zEHlmC+r103tWby8 27BLocuD7hKqcweuu17HL0LW1iSYfhr/iXDOTiJ5LsKXtBMYAVXbhamLKNOuHTO1 qFdA55f6vtY/eMdWQ8qM+q31cLX0WYiQdsGonuIzqeIXETnmq9rx7fRaxpvv6K4Y 0u9N1NFwrpz2eOuIX/KFicoZs1tGID5OjnL2QB897za8i56oKjHFwNzZCndESc3h 78HXNzu7XMjRQHN8QvwybpWhtDanLd/3ZFvHMViZT9Zo2KAMsCgPNkqDe9SXrrEC vEYgZn0QO3Akrk1FmmzCCgMzP3F9l3czBNK7mwARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJTmvaD AhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJELoMD9CWlwlTfKQH/2UsN6WgoyMGgRFm+INdAT8/ew4r30l5 mTMKuAfpLs9lbIfeRJoq2+HtKsv8MNzYYCR595tdI9kTijhD0RKKhEfacBLIZFvZ 0j5SLaR+PC7Ky+KAIXIIZnrHsFAQR21Hup0POxuWeuvs0pfcFWTnNEb6cZHzTP7J YnUA/khgamUK/uWWymKxOsgR5A/zzHrjnWgMws7vKi7Kd0gvr2t/X393iAxvfUqT IGiSx+fq/bGB8uyTuQPFpaDRNMo7k2knzQzt4idSKz89tejWyimS71QdnmPWJP84 OTnHUaGQdQamnAQqh5g3GC6XqS57apLQZx+7Y7WUpPjeX/+vQ2GtzuE= =RFjZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
I get the concept of volunteering just fine, I've been using Linux for as long as I remember and I actually contributed to the Linux kernel itself. Thank you very much.
Thing is, I use bitcoin-qt to get paid for work, and I'm not going to put my hard earned money on random AUR packages for this.
The reason I trust the package from the repo is that I'm hoping I can verify by signing them in some way, but there's no way I'm using some random AUR package for this.
Diego
Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude or be offensive towards the AUR, the AUR is great, but when using things like bitcoin, how can you be safe that using bitcoin-qt from the AUR is fine? What Emily suggested, actually building it myself works fine, but is there anything else I can do in order to verify my binaries if I'm using someone else's build? Diego
On 09/01/2016 12:41 PM, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude or be offensive towards the AUR, the AUR is great, but when using things like bitcoin, how can you be safe that using bitcoin-qt from the AUR is fine?
What Emily suggested, actually building it myself works fine, but is there anything else I can do in order to verify my binaries if I'm using someone else's build?
This tells me that you do not actually know what the AUR is. The AUR is a collection of build scripts (in Arch Linux parlance, the "PKGBUILD"), which describes how to download and build a package. Yourself. :) :) You can trust an AUR package to the same extent you can trust your own eyeballs, which you use to read the PKGBUILD and confirm that it is doing the same thing the stable PKGBUILD in the ABS is doing. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 12:41 PM, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude or be offensive towards the AUR, the AUR is great, but when using things like bitcoin, how can you be safe that using bitcoin-qt from the AUR is fine?
What Emily suggested, actually building it myself works fine, but is there anything else I can do in order to verify my binaries if I'm using someone else's build?
This tells me that you do not actually know what the AUR is.
The AUR is a collection of build scripts (in Arch Linux parlance, the "PKGBUILD"), which describes how to download and build a package. Yourself.
:) :)
You can trust an AUR package to the same extent you can trust your own eyeballs, which you use to read the PKGBUILD and confirm that it is doing the same thing the stable PKGBUILD in the ABS is doing.
-- Eli Schwartz
I actually know that, yes. My point is that there can be bad PKGBUILDs out there that could fetch the bitcoin-qt binary from somewhere else, which means I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own. I admit to not use the AUR a lot (I stick mostly to packages from the repos), but I understand how the AUR works. Diego
On 01/09/16 18:54, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own.
This should be done for *ALL* AUR builds actually. You should always be aware of what you are running on your machine, especially if that involves sudo rights. Cheers, Kwang
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/09/16 18:54, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own.
This should be done for *ALL* AUR builds actually. You should always be aware of what you are running on your machine, especially if that involves sudo rights.
Cheers, Kwang
You're right, thanks. Diego
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 18:58:48 +0200, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general wrote:
On 01/09/16 18:54, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own.
This should be done for *ALL* AUR builds actually.
Yesno ;). Some AUR maintainers, even maintainers of kernel packages, seems to be trustworthy :). For example https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-rt/ . I trust the binary packages from http://archaudio.org/ . The only reason that I take a look at this PKGBUILD from AUR is, that I only use it, if I have a reason to build from AUR and to modify the config, instead of using the package from http://archaudio.org/ , apart from this, it seem to be more up-to-date, but that's no reason for me to use the PKGBUILD. Btw. the submitter is a trusted user, https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-users/ . Regards, Ralf
On 09/01/2016 12:54 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
I actually know that, yes. My point is that there can be bad PKGBUILDs out there that could fetch the bitcoin-qt binary from somewhere else, which means I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own.
I admit to not use the AUR a lot (I stick mostly to packages from the repos), but I understand how the AUR works.
Well, that is good, especially since I was joking. But you do realize that the idea of "bad PKGBUILDs out there" is a known, fundamental part of the AUR and you are *always* advised to read what you run before running it? ... with the exception of any particular maintainers who you may or may not have a specific reason to trust. e.g. The Arch Developers and Trusted Users, many of whom also maintain AUR packages. You can also check a *-git PKGBUILD once, save it and re-run periodically. Or use the AUR git support to see what a maintainer has changed in their latest push to the AUR. Some AUR helpers even remember your packages and show you the diff of what changed... Or use Xyne's "bauerbill"[1] AUR helper which can track who you trust and/or which AUR upload dates you trust, individually or together (and otherwise prompt you to review the PKGBUILD). ... Reading a PKGBUILD does not take a lot of time, why do you consider it such a horrible burden that complaining on the mailing list about "irresponsible" maintainers is more efficient? -- Eli Schwartz [1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=205834
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 12:54 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
I actually know that, yes. My point is that there can be bad PKGBUILDs out there that could fetch the bitcoin-qt binary from somewhere else, which means I'll need to review the PKGBUILD beforehand or write my own.
I admit to not use the AUR a lot (I stick mostly to packages from the repos), but I understand how the AUR works.
Well, that is good, especially since I was joking.
But you do realize that the idea of "bad PKGBUILDs out there" is a known, fundamental part of the AUR and you are *always* advised to read what you run before running it?
Yes, I'm aware of that.
... with the exception of any particular maintainers who you may or may not have a specific reason to trust. e.g. The Arch Developers and Trusted Users, many of whom also maintain AUR packages.
You can also check a *-git PKGBUILD once, save it and re-run periodically. Or use the AUR git support to see what a maintainer has changed in their latest push to the AUR. Some AUR helpers even remember your packages and show you the diff of what changed... Or use Xyne's "bauerbill"[1] AUR helper which can track who you trust and/or which AUR upload dates you trust, individually or together (and otherwise prompt you to review the PKGBUILD).
...
Reading a PKGBUILD does not take a lot of time, why do you consider it such a horrible burden that complaining on the mailing list about "irresponsible" maintainers is more efficient?
-- Eli Schwartz
Well, I understand maintainers are busy, but it is your job as a maintainer to communicate effectively, if I put some package up for others to use it, it is MY responsibility to tell users I won't be able to update or respond quickly. You can't expect all your users to maintain their own PKGBUILD for outdated packages just because some maintainer is busy or being lazy. Diego
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:20:49 -0300, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
You can't expect all your users to maintain their own PKGBUILD for outdated packages just because some maintainer is busy or being lazy.
ABS was mentioned several times. Is there another rolling release more up to date and that stable as Arch Linux is? Debian sid for example is less up to date and has tendencies to be unstable for a lot of software. Nothing is perfect;). Regards, Ralf
On 09/01/2016 02:20 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
Well, I understand maintainers are busy, but it is your job as a maintainer to communicate effectively, if I put some package up for others to use it, it is MY responsibility to tell users I won't be able to update or respond quickly.
You can't expect all your users to maintain their own PKGBUILD for outdated packages just because some maintainer is busy or being lazy.
As an AUR maintainer, I try to update as soon as I can. And I think I do a pretty good job with that. But not everyone can, because not everyone has the time. And 10 days is not a lot of time to allow for Real Life interference. Standard Arch Linux policy is "don't bug the TUs, they will get around to updating things when they have the chance". More TUs is the only conceivable solution to the problem of "the current group of TUs don't, as a group, have the spare time to update all packages, immediately upon being flagged out of date". So, what exactly is your problem with the TUs having a life out of Arch Linux (which they have no obligation to and contribute to on a purely voluntary basis)? Personally, I think as a general rule of thumb the TUs do a great job at maintaining a distro that is significantly less obsolete than the majority of other distros. And I don't get upset when a relative handful of packages lag behind *less than on the aforementioned alternative distros*. -- Eli Schwartz
I just wish rEFInd would get an update. It's been out of date for close to 10 months now. I'm just wondering if having more than one maintainer on a package would help lighten the load. The maintainer of rEFInd has 221 other packages, so it's understandable that something might slip through on occasion. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 02:20 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
Well, I understand maintainers are busy, but it is your job as a maintainer to communicate effectively, if I put some package up for others to use it, it is MY responsibility to tell users I won't be able to update or respond quickly.
You can't expect all your users to maintain their own PKGBUILD for outdated packages just because some maintainer is busy or being lazy.
As an AUR maintainer, I try to update as soon as I can. And I think I do a pretty good job with that.
But not everyone can, because not everyone has the time. And 10 days is not a lot of time to allow for Real Life interference.
Standard Arch Linux policy is "don't bug the TUs, they will get around to updating things when they have the chance".
More TUs is the only conceivable solution to the problem of "the current group of TUs don't, as a group, have the spare time to update all packages, immediately upon being flagged out of date". So, what exactly is your problem with the TUs having a life out of Arch Linux (which they have no obligation to and contribute to on a purely voluntary basis)?
Personally, I think as a general rule of thumb the TUs do a great job at maintaining a distro that is significantly less obsolete than the majority of other distros. And I don't get upset when a relative handful of packages lag behind *less than on the aforementioned alternative distros*.
-- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz93@gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 02:20 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
Well, I understand maintainers are busy, but it is your job as a maintainer to communicate effectively, if I put some package up for others to use it, it is MY responsibility to tell users I won't be able to update or respond quickly.
You can't expect all your users to maintain their own PKGBUILD for outdated packages just because some maintainer is busy or being lazy.
As an AUR maintainer, I try to update as soon as I can. And I think I do a pretty good job with that.
But not everyone can, because not everyone has the time. And 10 days is not a lot of time to allow for Real Life interference.
Standard Arch Linux policy is "don't bug the TUs, they will get around to updating things when they have the chance".
More TUs is the only conceivable solution to the problem of "the current group of TUs don't, as a group, have the spare time to update all packages, immediately upon being flagged out of date". So, what exactly is your problem with the TUs having a life out of Arch Linux (which they have no obligation to and contribute to on a purely voluntary basis)?
No, I'm not saying that, please let's not make this personal, it's not. I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to date packages.
Personally, I think as a general rule of thumb the TUs do a great job at maintaining a distro that is significantly less obsolete than the majority of other distros. And I don't get upset when a relative handful of packages lag behind *less than on the aforementioned alternative distros*.
-- Eli Schwartz
Thanks, Diego
On 09/01/2016 06:00 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
No, I'm not saying that, please let's not make this personal, it's not.
I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to date packages.
I am not trying to make this personal. :) It just sounds like you are unhappy with the way the TUs are handling things, and I am trying to highlight the fact that they are doing the best they can. What makes Arch so special, is not just the up-to-date packages, but the do-it-yourself mindset and the existence of the AUR. It is the fact that Arch users know how their system works, and usually know how to build their own packages as and when needed, to enhance their system beyond what the main repositories contain. As a result, we have the power to run experimental (*-git) versions of stuff, to update before the distro maintainers do, etc. And, there will always be out-of-date packages. But, there are ~15K packages in the repos, and 745 currently-flagged-out-of-date ones. (That includes things in testing, and duplicated i686/x86_64 arch-dependent packages... so the actual numbers will be different but the proportions should be similar and thus the point is the same.) Most packages in Arch are up to date. And the TUs work hard to keep things that way. And even though they sometimes fail, we are still more up to date than most other distros. We may sometimes be less special, but even then we are still pretty darn special. :) Being concerned that the system is slacking as a whole is probably not going to be an accurate assumption. The sky is not falling. And if it were... that only means Arch users are less interested these days in becoming TUs and helping to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. In which case, maybe "we" don't deserve to have Arch provided for our use anymore. Not that I think that is happening! ... The solution, in all cases, remains the same. Pitch in to help, acquire familiarity with the way Arch works, contribute your own AUR packages to learn the ropes, and then try to get someone to sponsor you to become a TU. (Or, whichever steps are applicable to each person's case.) Arch helps those who help themselves. -- Eli Schwartz
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:00 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
No, I'm not saying that, please let's not make this personal, it's not.
I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to date packages.
I am not trying to make this personal. :) It just sounds like you are unhappy with the way the TUs are handling things, and I am trying to highlight the fact that they are doing the best they can.
What makes Arch so special, is not just the up-to-date packages, but the do-it-yourself mindset and the existence of the AUR. It is the fact that Arch users know how their system works, and usually know how to build their own packages as and when needed, to enhance their system beyond what the main repositories contain. As a result, we have the power to run experimental (*-git) versions of stuff, to update before the distro maintainers do, etc. And, there will always be out-of-date packages.
But, there are ~15K packages in the repos, and 745 currently-flagged-out-of-date ones. (That includes things in testing, and duplicated i686/x86_64 arch-dependent packages... so the actual numbers will be different but the proportions should be similar and thus the point is the same.)
Most packages in Arch are up to date. And the TUs work hard to keep things that way. And even though they sometimes fail, we are still more up to date than most other distros. We may sometimes be less special, but even then we are still pretty darn special. :) Being concerned that the system is slacking as a whole is probably not going to be an accurate assumption. The sky is not falling.
And if it were... that only means Arch users are less interested these days in becoming TUs and helping to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. In which case, maybe "we" don't deserve to have Arch provided for our use anymore. Not that I think that is happening!
...
The solution, in all cases, remains the same. Pitch in to help, acquire familiarity with the way Arch works, contribute your own AUR packages to learn the ropes, and then try to get someone to sponsor you to become a TU. (Or, whichever steps are applicable to each person's case.)
Arch helps those who help themselves.
-- Eli Schwartz
I'm not unhappy with Arch, it is by far my favorite distribution. I'm simply worried we're seeing more and more out of date packages, but the reasons are understandable, maybe I should start relaying on the AUR more. I'm simply curious if there is something we can do to help as users. Diego
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2016 06:00 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
No, I'm not saying that, please let's not make this personal, it's not.
I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to date packages.
I am not trying to make this personal. :) It just sounds like you are unhappy with the way the TUs are handling things, and I am trying to highlight the fact that they are doing the best they can.
What makes Arch so special, is not just the up-to-date packages, but the do-it-yourself mindset and the existence of the AUR. It is the fact that Arch users know how their system works, and usually know how to build their own packages as and when needed, to enhance their system beyond what the main repositories contain. As a result, we have the power to run experimental (*-git) versions of stuff, to update before the distro maintainers do, etc. And, there will always be out-of-date packages.
But, there are ~15K packages in the repos, and 745 currently-flagged-out-of-date ones. (That includes things in testing, and duplicated i686/x86_64 arch-dependent packages... so the actual numbers will be different but the proportions should be similar and thus the point is the same.)
Most packages in Arch are up to date. And the TUs work hard to keep things that way. And even though they sometimes fail, we are still more up to date than most other distros. We may sometimes be less special, but even then we are still pretty darn special. :) Being concerned that the system is slacking as a whole is probably not going to be an accurate assumption. The sky is not falling.
And if it were... that only means Arch users are less interested these days in becoming TUs and helping to spread the load and keep things running smoothly. In which case, maybe "we" don't deserve to have Arch provided for our use anymore. Not that I think that is happening!
...
The solution, in all cases, remains the same. Pitch in to help, acquire familiarity with the way Arch works, contribute your own AUR packages to learn the ropes, and then try to get someone to sponsor you to become a TU. (Or, whichever steps are applicable to each person's case.)
Arch helps those who help themselves.
-- Eli Schwartz
I'm not unhappy with Arch, it is by far my favorite distribution. I'm simply worried we're seeing more and more out of date packages, but the reasons are understandable, maybe I should start relaying on the AUR more.
I'm simply curious if there is something we can do to help as users.
Diego
Seems like 0.13 has finally entered in community-testing. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community-testing/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/ Thanks, Diego
On 09/05/2016 01:08 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
Seems like 0.13 has finally entered in community-testing.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community-testing/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Wow, a whole 14 days. ;) And, of course, that disregards the fact that it was in staging for 10 days along with the entire boost ecosystem. -- Eli Schwartz
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/05/2016 01:08 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
Seems like 0.13 has finally entered in community-testing.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community-testing/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Wow, a whole 14 days. ;)
And, of course, that disregards the fact that it was in staging for 10 days along with the entire boost ecosystem.
-- Eli Schwartz
Yes, I've seen that: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/bitcoin&id=7219b297d3ac03982fb38dc99f983ede3a32cdb2 Sorry, I probably should have looked better. Diego
I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to date packages. It seems legitimate to expect the package to be up-to-date given it may be bothersome to compile it, this isn't Gentoo after all. However, that goes both ways, as was said, the maintainer may have reasons for which it wasn't compiled yet.
As such, I suggest you use a new bitcoin-qt-bin package, basing on these instructions (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#other-linux-distributions), simply changing to install to $pkgdir/usr/bin, using the binary package digitally signed by the project itself (https://bitcoin.org/en/download). You can add it to the AUR if you believe others will profit from it as well. It will be almost as fast to install as using the official repos, and will always be up-to-date (as long as you know there's a new version). There will be no compiling hassle. Hope this helps, João Miguel
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:13:00PM -0300, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
Thing is, I use bitcoin-qt to get paid for work, and I'm not going to put my hard earned money on random AUR packages for this.
The reason I trust the package from the repo is that I'm hoping I can verify by signing them in some way, but there's no way I'm using some random AUR package for this.
Why not just get the PKGBUILD[1] for bitcoin-qt, make whatever updates you want to get it up-to-date and then build it yourself? Then you wouldn't have an issue of trust, surely? [1] Either through abs or https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packa... -- Emily Shepherd Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons) W: https://emilyshepherd.me/ M: +44(0)7575 721 231
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Emily Shepherd via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:13:00PM -0300, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
Thing is, I use bitcoin-qt to get paid for work, and I'm not going to put my hard earned money on random AUR packages for this.
The reason I trust the package from the repo is that I'm hoping I can verify by signing them in some way, but there's no way I'm using some random AUR package for this.
Why not just get the PKGBUILD[1] for bitcoin-qt, make whatever updates you want to get it up-to-date and then build it yourself? Then you wouldn't have an issue of trust, surely?
[1] Either through abs or https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packa...
-- Emily Shepherd Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons) W: https://emilyshepherd.me/ M: +44(0)7575 721 231
Yes, I think that's the best approach, I'll do that, thanks. Sorry for the noise. Diego
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:24:08 -0300, Diego Viola via arch-general wrote:
through abs
Yes, I think that's the best approach, I'll do that, thanks.
Hi, if there should be a good reason to use the latest and greatest from the minute it is released, ABS [1] is what I use regularly, let alone that building from git could be required, then assuming an AUR git package should be crap or a package shouldn't be available at all, building our own package often isn't hard to do. Assuming that building a package should be hard to do, then getting help from AUR general [2] shouldn't be a problem, even if we don't want to maintain an AUR package. IMO this is a part of the user-centric approach [3]. Regards, Ralf [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System [2] https://lists.archlinux.org//listinfo/aur-general [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux#User_centrality
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Jeroen Mathon via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Some people have projects, or other things that take priority, if you have a problem then get the git version from the AUR
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, 18:01 Diego Viola via arch-general, < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:42:24 -0300 Diego Viola via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello,
I flagged this package 10 days ago as out of date and I've been trying to contact the maintainer about it, with no response.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/bitcoin-qt/
Is there any problem with updating this? Any reasons for the delay or lack of response?
Thanks, Diego
Oh no, 10 days.
Seriously?
Other packages get updated much quicker, are you just going to put the blame the users on this one too?
Diego
I have a similar question. If I have a working PKGBUILD for an out-dated package, and I have tested all other packages that depends on it, can I open "pull requests" to get the updated PKGBUILD into Arch Linux? To be more specific, I'm talking about youtube-dl. I'm currently one of youtube-dl maintainers, and I hope Arch users can always get the latest version with pacman. Unfortunately, the package in [community] gets updates slow in comparison with how youtube-dl releases new versions. AUR works, while it's not an ideal solution, as VCS packages are not updated automatically. (I guess there are some helpers for that, but still not ideal for this case) Best, Yen Chi Hsuan
Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
To be more specific, I'm talking about youtube-dl. I'm currently one of youtube-dl maintainers, and I hope Arch users can always get the latest version with pacman. Unfortunately, the package in [community] gets updates slow in comparison with how youtube-dl releases new versions. AUR works, while it's not an ideal solution, as VCS packages are not updated automatically. (I guess there are some helpers for that, but still not ideal for this case)
Best,
Yen Chi Hsuan
youtube-dl gets a new release every two days, I hope you're not expecting packagers to keep up with that. Current package is one month old, that doesn't look too bad to me, especially considering that its maintainer is currently inactive.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Antonio Rojas <arojas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
To be more specific, I'm talking about youtube-dl. I'm currently one of youtube-dl maintainers, and I hope Arch users can always get the latest version with pacman. Unfortunately, the package in [community] gets updates slow in comparison with how youtube-dl releases new versions. AUR works, while it's not an ideal solution, as VCS packages are not updated automatically. (I guess there are some helpers for that, but still not ideal for this case)
Best,
Yen Chi Hsuan
youtube-dl gets a new release every two days, I hope you're not expecting packagers to keep up with that. Current package is one month old, that doesn't look too bad to me, especially considering that its maintainer is currently inactive.
Yep that's my expectation. There were several times, that a new version with important fixes (fix for YouTube downloading, etc.) was released, and lots of people came to our issue tracker for "broken" YouTube downloading because the Arch version was not updated yet. As a result, I hope Arch can keep it updated. Of course users can also use our own updater or AUR. I just feel the official package integrates with the system better. For example it updates with `pacman -Syu`. *NOTE* I'm not blaming anyone. I just hope that I can contribute something to Arch, so I'm asking possible approaches here. I know it's a burden to update a package so often, so I'm not requesting anything, just discussing. Best, Yen Chi Hsuan
On 01/09/16 20:32, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
Yep that's my expectation. There were several times, that a new version with important fixes (fix for YouTube downloading, etc.) was released, and lots of people came to our issue tracker for "broken" YouTube downloading because the Arch version was not updated yet.
In this case, wouldn't it suite better to be in the AUR always? It would be practically impossible that a package to be reviewed and signed so often. Also, my personal expectation on the official packages is to be more stable than that. Cheers, Kwang
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/09/16 20:32, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
Yep that's my expectation. There were several times, that a new version with important fixes (fix for YouTube downloading, etc.) was released, and lots of people came to our issue tracker for "broken" YouTube downloading because the Arch version was not updated yet.
In this case, wouldn't it suite better to be in the AUR always?
From "Rules of submission" section on Arch Wiki: [1]
Check the official package database <https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> for the package. If *any version* of it exists, *do not* submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. I'm not sure whether my case is an exception to this rule or not.
It would be practically impossible that a package to be reviewed and signed so often. Also, my personal expectation on the official packages is to be more stable than that.
Unlike other programs, most new youtube-dl bugs come from changed websites, not changes in youtube-dl itself. For example if YouTube changes how videos are delivered, we have to update relevant codes and ask users to update as soon as possible.
Cheers, Kwang
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:48:37AM +0800, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 01/09/16 20:32, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote:
Yep that's my expectation. There were several times, that a new version with important fixes (fix for YouTube downloading, etc.) was released, and lots of people came to our issue tracker for "broken" YouTube downloading because the Arch version was not updated yet.
In this case, wouldn't it suite better to be in the AUR always?
From "Rules of submission" section on Arch Wiki: [1]
Check the official package database <https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> for the package. If *any version* of it exists, *do not* submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such.
I'm not sure whether my case is an exception to this rule or not.
Are the actual releases of youtube-dl particularly more stable than the -git versions? I myself only use the -git package from the AUR, and have never had an issue with it. If this is the case, then I think the current situation is probably fine (-git in AUR, "stable" in official repos). --Sean
participants (14)
-
Antonio Rojas
-
Chi Hsuan Yen
-
D C
-
Diego Viola
-
Doug Newgard
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Emily Shepherd
-
Guus Snijders
-
Jeroen Mathon
-
João Miguel
-
Kwang Moo Yi
-
mike lojkovic
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Sean Greenslade