- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Should TU put in [community] packages they use?
by bardo 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

This came to my mind reading the discussion about Sergej, but after some thinking I couldn't make up a clear opinion about it, so this thread just brings up the question. There's a few packages I maintain in unsupported that almost nobody voted, so I never moved them to [community]. But what if I use them in my daily activities? I'm interested in having an up-to-date package, so I'd maintain, build and test it anyway... should I share it with its (small) user base? Corrado

7 9

[aur-general] qt-4 and qt3 will move to [extra]
by Pierre Schmitz 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

Hi TUs, I plan to move qt-4, qt3 and all related packages from [testing] to [extra] this weekend. If you have any package which directly(!) depends on qt version 3 you'll have to update its dependency to qt3. If your package uses qt4 you mgiht want to change to just qt (but atm this is optional because qt provides qt4). If you package does not have a direct dependency like a kde application which just depends on kdelibs etc. you do not need to change anything. Greetings, Pierre -- http://www.archlinux.de

2 2

[aur-general] REMOVAL: Discussion Period for sergej
by Callan Barrett 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

sergej, this officially marks the discussion period for your removal as a Trusted User. For weeks now it's come to my attention many times your attitude as a Trusted User as well as the attention of several other people and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up earlier, I'm going to list the reasons I believe you're no longer fit to be a Trusted User and I want you to defend yourself on these points: * You have neglected voting long enough to be brought up for removal, even longer if you do not vote again in the next 2 days, and when you do vote it is only just "acceptable". * You currently maintain 602 packages in the community repo: - This is an insane amount of packages by any standard and yet you keep adopting more for no apparent reason other than to bump your package count, not many of them have a high vote count so why is this? You're not helping out by adopting packages when you can't maintain them properly. - It's possible for me to pick out almost any package at random that you maintain and find something that goes against arch packaging standards such as missing maintainer tags, missing licenses and some of the weirdest build functions I've ever seen, it's as if you adopt these packages straight out of unsupported without checking them at all. - The fact you don't bother with licenses has already become an issue, as I pointed out recently on the ML (which you did not even reply to) you had packaged smf *illegally*. Furthermore you leave licenses blank, add bogus licenses such as "unknown" or don't add a license variable at all, this is obviously not good enough. * Aside from voting occasionally your contribution to discussions are very few, part of being a TU is the community aspect and I know you're not the only person who does this. ~70 of your packages are missing licenses. ~440 are missing either a maintainer tag of contributor tag. ~550 are missing a maintainer tag. I think you have too many packages for anybody to maintain properly which seems to be the cause of your neglect towards them and I can't think up any justifiable reason that you adopt so many in the first place. I want you to reply to this thread so you can hopefully justify your actions but to be honest I see no reason why you should continue being a Trusted User with this attitude towards the job you agreed to when you applied. So begins the three day discussion period, I'm very interested in anyone's response to this issue. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett

20 46

[aur-general] [Who has seen him?] nesl247 & zeus
by JJDaNiMoTh 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

Welcome to the new program transmit on-the-cable from aur-general mailing list! Today, I want to speak you about two Trusted Users: nesl247 and zeus. They disappear without a message! The last message from nesl was http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-October/006022.html. I can't find the last message from zeus... I do not have too much time :D On the package's view, nesl doesn't have out-of-dated packages ( 0 of 5 maintained in community ), which last updated is system-config-printer ( Last Updated: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:01:01 ). Zeus has 17 packages in community, which 4 out-of-dated. I don't see the last-updated time.. is it needed? We're look for them.. but if you have any notice, please call 12-3456789, send a fax to 98-7654321 or reply to this mail. Thanks in advance! -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User

3 2

[aur-general] Missing Packages
by aur-notify＠archlinux.org 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

Missing x86_64 Packages: No new package supplied for libgadu 1.7.1-1! -- This is an automated message. If you wish to stop receiving it twice a day, fix the package(s).

1 0

[aur-general] Policy for [community] packages
by Alexander Fehr 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

As suggested by Aaron I want to discuss whether we need a policy to decide what packages go into [community]. Should this decision be based on the number of votes a package has? Should we discuss each [community] candidate on the mailing list as it's done with [extra] candidates? Or should each TU decide on his own which package he wants to add to [community] as it's done now? Alex

3 2

[aur-general] Note for partition: Gizmo license does not allow redistribution!
by Ronald van Haren 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

Mateusz, Please read all custom licenses before submitting something to [community]. The gizmo license does not allow redistribution (unless you have some kind of third party agreement with them). Assuming you have not such an agreement, please remove it from [community] again ASAP. Thanks, Ronald

3 2

[aur-general] Versioned Provisions
by Aaron Griffin 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

This is a little "heads up" email to all the package maintainers out there. Pacman 3.1 has support for versioned provisions. But what this also means is that there's going to be some breakages in packages. Let me explain by way of example: package foo depends=(bar>=1.2) package omg provides=(bar) In the past, you could install both foo and omg at the same time and everything would be satisfied. Not now. Now, the provision of "omg" will fail, because it's not providing the right version. What does this mean? Well, a few things. First and foremost, versioned provisions are a little broken in 3.1.0, but 3.1.1 will fix all this py allowing you to say: provides=(bar=1.2) Did I get this right? Dan, Xavier?

3 5

[aur-general] [VOTE] Mateusz Herych (partition)
by Ronald van Haren 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

Hi TUs, After a busy discussion period, this mail starts the 7 day voting period for Mateusz. His introduction was here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-January/006549.html Please be as active during the voting period as during the discussion period. My vote is YES. Best, Ronald

24 27

[aur-general] DISCUSSION: Sebastian Nowicki (Xilon)
by Callan Barrett 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Alright, this marks the start of the 5 day discussion period for Xilon, you can see his original application here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-January/006678.html I feel confident in his ability and it seems he's already getting a tonne of praise over the work he's already done so no problem over here. So get discussing... -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett

2 1