- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Remember the rules for adding packages to [community]
by Allan McRae 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

So... I just noticed a package was added to [community] that I am certain did not pass any of the criteria required for being added. When I looked in the AUR for that package less than a week ago as a potential replacement for an old and unmaintained package in [core], it was not even in the AUR... and I can find no evidence for it every being added to the AUR in the time since. So it did not have 10 votes, it definitely would not have 1% pkgstats usage. So this is a reminder to everyone that there are rules about adding packages to [community] for a reason. With the complaints about running low on disk space being made lately, it seems we should remember to not put unused packages into [community] to prevent the remaining space being wasted... Allan

3 3

[aur-general] Please delete vncviewer-enterprise 4.5.4-1
by Tom Wizetek 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=44168 Thank you. -- TW / MajorTom

2 3

[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?
by Kaiting Chen 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

Apparently there are some people who think the bylaws are broken. On another readthrough it seems to me that the entire document could be streamlined substantially, and definitions could be made more explicit (especially in the matter of activity versus inactivity). In addition it is my personal opinion that the whole idea of the quorum should be reworked. According to Robert's Rules of Order, "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions.". In the case of an internet presence where inclement weather is not an issue it seems to me that all active Trusted Users should be required to participate in a vote; if an active Trusted User does not vote then this should be taken as a sign of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity. Also I believe that it would be nice to include a clause indicating that the requisite numbers of votes for a vote have been achieved the vote should be allowed to end prematurely. For example if there are thirty Trusted Users and twenty of them vote for the addition of a Trusted User by the second day of the voting procedure then it should not be necessary to extend the vote to the full seven days because no amount of nay's can effect a negative outcome. In this case the five day delay that would result from a strict adherence to the current bylaws is wasteful inefficiency. In fact it is my desire that the bylaws resemble as closely as possible an already established system for such proceedings such as Robert's Rules of Order. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

5 8

[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar
by Ionuț Bîru 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

Hi, Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year. Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a voting procedure should follow after 7 days of discussion. Here are my reasons: 1) i noticed in January he doesn't have an account on our devel panel, i asked him to send all the infos to get one and he replied that he doesn't need one because none of his packages are suitable for community. Replying to his email i encourage to get one and adopt some packages from community. At that time we have ~700 orphans and i haven't got any replies from him. 2) no commits in community since the addition. 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this proposal doesn't have sense. Quoting: "There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above." I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them. -- Ionuț

14 32

[aur-general] Understanding the Trusted User Bylaws
by Loui Chang 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html I've noticed that there have been a few cases relatively recently where people don't really understand the bylaws. I'd like to encourage all Trusted Users to read over the bylaws periodically to make sure that they fully understand the procedures. Questions and clarifications are welcome on this list. If something is hard to understand, the bylaws can be revised and amended. If you don't agree with a certain procedure that may also be amended. Thanks for your consideration.

7 9

[aur-general] deletion request: squeak, squeak-basicimage, squeak-fullimage
by solsTiCe d'Hiver 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

hi. squeak-basicimage and squeak-fullimage refer to old image of squeak image file. also the package do not build anymore because the sources are not there. squeak.org does not provide basic or full but just images for now. So would it makes sense to remove them ? I have transformed squeak package into squeak-vm (renamed it). So squeak package could be removed also. I have emailed drgeo maintainer of the changes to not break dependancy there if you delete squeak package as expected. I would like squeak users, if there is ones over here, to test squeak-vm and squeak-image, because I am not a squeak user. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3705 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3707 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3706

2 4

[aur-general] arduino cleanup
by PyroPeter 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

Hello AUR users! I borrowed an arduino recently and found the *arduino*-part of the AUR to be very messy. Here are my findings: ## arduino64-updated [1] Outdated for ages, the copy of a copy of the arduino-PKGBUILD. Can be deleted. ## arduino64 [2] and arduino [3] The difference is difficult to find, the descriptions do not help in any way. arduino depends on avrdude, while arduino64 includes an outdated, but patched avrdude from the Arduino-project. I wrote an architecture-independent PKGBUILD that could replace arduino and an adapted one that includes the patched avrdude. It could replace arduino64. I am not sure about the naming of the two new packages, but I think it would make sense to call the package with included avrdude "arduino", because the Arduino SDK includes avrdude by default. The other one could be called "arduino_unpatched". (I am using an underscore here to distinguish it from the "mainname-modulename" notation used by arduino-onewire (which is an add-on for arduino) tl,dr: arduino64 can be deleted, I would like arduino to be orphaned. ## arduino-pyro [4] I uploaded my new PKGBUILD for the arduino-without-avrdude package under this name to get feedback. It can be deleted. Regards, PyroPeter [1] arduino64-updated https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32041 [2] arduino64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24053 [3] arduino https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8388 [4] arduino-pyro https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43902 -- freenode/pyropeter "12:50 - Ich drücke Return."

3 9

[aur-general] moving packages to community
by Ike Devolder 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

Thx guys for letting me know you would move some packages from AUR to community thats really stimulating to contribute something if you dont know what i'm talking about - libssh2 ( i picked it up after bash dropped it in AUR) - podofo (cant remember how i picked it up) It would just be a little polite , just to let someone know the move will be done cant be that hard to send a mail ;)

3 3

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar
by Linux Lover 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

2010/12/4 <aur-general-request(a)archlinux.org> > > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:07:54 -0500 > From: Loui Chang <louipc.ist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > <aur-general(a)archlinux.org> > Message-ID: <20101204220754.GC32145(a)celine.lan> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionu? B?ru wrote: > > On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: > > >On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang<louipc.ist(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionu? B?ru wrote: > > >>>On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionu? B?ru wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>>i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been > only > > >>>in one direction. > > >>> > > >>>i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for > this > > >>>and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again. > > >>> > > >>>Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? > > >>>Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum? > > >> > > >>You still need to create a voting proposal. > > >>Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws? > > > > > >I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut > > >inferred that we needn't vote from the following: > > > > > >"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above." > > > > > > > above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the > > opposite of having a voting? NO voting. > > > > > > we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure. > we > > just removed it and we continued our business. > > > > with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair, > we > > are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in > > community. > > Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone. > But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws. > Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to > inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws. > > We cannot be at liberty to remove people without proper procedure. > Forgive me for speaking out of term here, but wouldn't it just be easier to amend the bylaws to get away of that ambiguity? Two people reading it, two different conclusions, sounds like a lawyer could make big money out of this ;-).

3 2

[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2
by Ionuț Bîru 05 Dec '10

05 Dec '10

hi, because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure. Conform bylaws a motion procedure should be sent on aur-general with reasons. Here are my reasons: 1) i noticed in January he doesn't have an account on our devel panel, i asked him to send all the infos to get one and he replied that he doesn't need one because none of his packages are suitable for community. Replying to his email i encourage to get one and adopt some packages from community. At that time we have ~700 orphans and i haven't got any replies from him. 2) no commits in community since the addition. 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting. Please discuss the motion(really discuss and not like in previous,couples of hours and the next days arguing about bylaws) Ranguvar can defend himself. -- Ionuț

8 7