On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:00 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

...

<snip>

Good rant. The TUs will take it from here....

Allan

Theres our hitman. :) Anyway this is probably my favourite topic when is comes to ranting about Arch. I could go on for days. I ll stick to the following. TUs need leadership or some kind of serious moderation. Also making clear what the role of the community repository . From upstream. Is it official? It isnt? I would vote for making it official and leave the unofficial role to unsupported. Otherwise dont even host it on gerolde. Greg

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:

...

3) The number of packages he maintains NEVER drops. I remember he had 660 a while back now its 686. And he has added 2 packages since yesterday evening.

This is not true, I can and I drop packages sometime, but I think home page downtime or even stopping developing is not the reason to remove package while it works.

Please give me list of packages that need fixing.

Sure, i am not saying that every single application whose website is down, or its not developed anymore doesnt belong in [community] either. But you know what i get from the way you behave? That your moto is: If it works it should be in [community]. Which is totally wrong. That every single application you have EVER built from unsupported, you moved to community. Or close enough. So the million dollar questions are: Do you use all 686 packages? Does anyone else does? Do you think its appropriate to provide all those applications as binary for 2-3 people? Can you build em for x86_64 too since noone else cares to? (Havent checked this TBH) IMO ~500 of you packages belong to unsupported. Many of which dont belong anywhere.

Yes, I can not check ~670 packages periodically, but I have time to fix all problems and update it.

That certifies what i am saying. Especially when it comes to making [community] official. Binary packages shouldnt be unofficial like [community] is today. If someone wants to maintain his own repo, he should get some hosting and do whtever he wants there. Add it to the list of unofficial mirrors on the wiki. Link from the AUR homepage to the wiki page. Example: There are many applications in AUR that depend on kdelibs. But they actually depend on kdelibs3. Noone bothers to report it, cause the binary works. The developers have built all the packages from extra to reflect that. The [community] package is never rebuilt. But thats not a problem right? The package works. WRONG. ABS doesnt work. And its your job to change it. But wait, you cant, you maintain 700 applications.. If you look at the statistics on archlinux.de you will see that 56% of the people who have submitted stats use yaourt. Package making in Archlinux is a piece of cake. There is absolutely NO REASON having applications hardly anyone uses provided as binary especially in a server having capacity issues. And moreover in a repository that the developers claim is having fucked up usage scripts. Archlinux is not Debian, and in many aspects it will hopefully never will be. Most applications are of low quality. There is no need to "promote" them. Stick to what users want and whats important (for others, and yourself). Greg

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

So you didn't take the hint when I said the TUs were dealing with this... Packages in community, the low proportion of people who reportedly use some of them and how we can improve that is currently being discussed.

I apologise. I honestly didnt mean to since Sergej replied. Its just within such groups people tend to use diplomacy. I just wanted to make sure that the message gets delivered the way i thought it was appropiate. And i dont think i offended anyone. If i did, im sorry. Its not a war and nothing is personal.

I will stick up for Sergej here. I don't like lots of unused packages in [community] either but I think it is more than possible to maintain that many packages. In fact, any problems reported to Sergej through the bug tracker are rapidly dealt with so he is maintaining them. He may not look at each individual package on a regular basis but if no-one reports a package broken, then there is little point in looking at it until it is flagged out of date.

Allan

I am not saying he is doing a bad job. Quite the contrary. but only considering the amount of the packages he maintains. Also he cant vouch for the quality of many of his packages at any given time. And for those packages there is a better place... Greg

Secondly, your remark abo

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

On Sunday 30 November 2008 23:24:42 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

...

Do you think its appropriate to provide all those applications as binary for 2-3 people?

I'm rather new to the whole Arch world, but I can offer the following:

Your messages to this list about Sergej sound more like personal attacks than constructive criticism. It seems to me that he's taken on a lot of responsibility here and your giving him grief over it won't help matters. ut maintaining packages for a small number of users fails to acknowledge that this is the very same behaviour as what you will find in the Linux kernel. Modular design strategies lend themselves well to communities with diverse needs. It seems to me that if the packages are used, accurate, and maintained, they should stay.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Daniel wrote:

On Sunday 30 November 2008 23:24:42 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

...

Do you think its appropriate to provide all those applications as binary for 2-3 people?

I'm rather new to the whole Arch world, but I can offer the following:

Your messages to this list about Sergej sound more like personal attacks than constructive criticism. It seems to me that he's taken on a lot of responsibility here and your giving him grief over it won't help matters.

But many of sergej's packages aren't "used" and "maintained" (see the previous mails) at all. IMO: I think we can start saving some space just with sergej, but also we have packages "unpopular", without votes and with few use, then we can go with our unpopular packages. Also sergej wasn't present in our meetings, he seems to be a machine like other ppl said, and to me is very unfair thinking about move packages to unsupported when you are the main guilty about the waste of space with packages with zero votes and non-popular. This is not an attack sergej I also would like to say "I maintain -three digit number- packages" someday but now being honestly why you, specially you who have that big quantity of packages on community and you are knowing the lack of resources, why you don't proposed to move your pkgs which have a small use to unsupported (i think 20% of your packages or more)?, as I said, starting just with sergej should be a good start, if you need help identifying what packages we are talking about I think we can do a list with some packages, then we can take this action as an example for the rest of us (TU crew) to move some stuff to unsupported. And please, i think now we should stop some uploads about new packages to community, at least until we've saved some space. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:10 +0300, Sergej Pupykin wrote:

...

you are knowing the lack of resources, why you don't proposed to move your pkgs which have a small use to unsupported (i think 20% of your packages or more)?, as I said, starting just with sergej should be a

If disk space situation so bad, I suggest to remove flightgear and rocksndiamons games, which save 2arch * ~300Mb = ~600Mb disk space.

Disk space is not an issue at this moment, as we have expanded our disk capacity quite a bit a few weeks ago. I think getting architecture-independent packages up and running gives us much more space than deleting one or two packages.

Sergej Pupykin wrote:

...

Disk space is not an issue at this moment, as we have expanded our disk capacity quite a bit a few weeks ago. I think getting architecture-independent packages up and running gives us much more space than deleting one or two packages.

As I understand mirror traffic and disk space not an issue too.

Then why we are talking about moving packages from community instead of trying to improve their quality?

To summarize the TU meetings (logs have been posted...), it is about replacing very low usage/unused packages in [community] with those with higher usage in unsupported. I.e. optimizing our resource usage. People with opinions on this should be discussing this in the dedicated thread(s) on aur-general so the discussion is easier to follow. This thread is too much of a direct attack on one individual to be productive. Go through all the packages with low vote on AUR and low usage from pkgstats and you will find that Sergej has around as many packages as would be expected given how many he maintains. Has anyone manually checked what proportion of his low vote packages are not dependencies for other packages? This need to be dealt with on a whole group basis, not an individual basis. Allan

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:10 +0300, Sergej Pupykin wrote:

...

...

you are knowing the lack of resources, why you don't proposed to move your pkgs which have a small use to unsupported (i think 20% of your packages or more)?, as I said, starting just with sergej should be a

If disk space situation so bad, I suggest to remove flightgear and rocksndiamons games, which save 2arch * ~300Mb = ~600Mb disk space.

Disk space is not an issue at this moment, as we have expanded our disk capacity quite a bit a few weeks ago. I think getting architecture-independent packages up and running gives us much more space than deleting one or two packages.

Ah, you read my mind - this is next on the docket.

Speaking of architecture-independent packages, do we have an x86_64 build machine? gcarrier has graciously offered his machine for building. Contact him.

Aaron Griffin a écrit :

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Jan de Groot wrote:

...

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:10 +0300, Sergej Pupykin wrote:

...

...

you are knowing the lack of resources, why you don't proposed to move your pkgs which have a small use to unsupported (i think 20% of your packages or more)?, as I said, starting just with sergej should be a

If disk space situation so bad, I suggest to remove flightgear and rocksndiamons games, which save 2arch * ~300Mb = ~600Mb disk space.

Disk space is not an issue at this moment, as we have expanded our disk capacity quite a bit a few weeks ago. I think getting architecture-independent packages up and running gives us much more space than deleting one or two packages.

Ah, you read my mind - this is next on the docket.

Great, that will greatly simplify my life, especially with those texlive packages! And it will save a significant amount of space. Thanks in advance, then. F