- Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines
by keenerd 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Officially, the tarballs uploaded to the AUR should be named after their package, contain a directory named after their package, contain no dot files and most importantly contain no binaries. Officially, these requirements are very important. Here are a bunch of non-conforming packages. Maybe 90% of them. (A few errors slip though my scanner.) Of the +700 packages with binaries, most are a simple desktop icon. Should these be base64 encoded if someone can't find hosting? If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two thousand maintainers do a better job. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com

21 49

[aur-general] Amendment
by Kaiting Chen 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

I move for the amendment of the bylaws. The patch against the current document is attached. Basically the amendment proposes that once an absolute majority is reached the voting period is to end immediately regardless of whether or not quorum was reached. The purpose of this amendment is to minimize parliamentary inefficiency by allowing votes with clearly decided outcomes to be resolved before the end of the established voting period. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

6 22

[aur-general] deletion request: dbus-systemd
by Dave Reisner 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Good morning, dbus-systemd is now superfluous with the necessary compile flags being added to testing/dbus-core. Please delete dbus-systemd at your convenience: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40399 thanks, dave

2 1

[aur-general] openttd package removal
by Joao Cordeiro 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

openttd [1] is in community too. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=9391 Thanks in advance Joao Cordeiro

2 1

[aur-general] removal of balazar
by Martti Kühne 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

balazar[1] can be removed. the project is abandoned and segfaults here. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11692

1 1

[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