Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Hi,

On 13.02.2016, at 15:35, William Di Luigi wrote: Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det?

I did, it was an unfortunate choice of words.

The "compromised/virus" flag I'm talking about should be removable only by a TU/dev. This also means that while a wrong out-of-date flag is not a big deal, a wrong compromised flag should yield harder consequences, in order to avoid abuse.

Maybe this isn't needed and asking for unintended wrong usage.

On 13.02.2016, at 18:43, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:

...

El 13/02/2016 a las 9:25 a. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió: ....I guess we should add a few notes to the guideline Wikis, we even don't need a CoC. Right now I don't have a good idea what exactly to add to the guideline Wikis. Regards, Ralf

I agree, we don't need a CoC, but we do need some tools to communicate this kind of toxic behavior to the right people. In private if necessary.

Mediators reachable by email would be good. OT: Regarding what to add to the Wiki and my original thread, I wonder if my claim is correct, even if a package build from AUR suffers from a soname issue, then it's _not_ out of date, since users need to care on their own to rebuild an AUR package, assumed a lib from official repos gets update and the AUR package is build against this lib. I didn't read the current AUR guides and will do it later. Perhaps the guides need a summary, they might be too long.

On 13.02.2016, at 20:49, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:

...

El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió: Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no proof of harassment yet.

WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet you are asking for public proof?

I guess we shouldn't continue the discussion about this maintainer. Regards, Ralf