Hi all, Thanks for the comments and explanations. Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order). I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below) Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach. What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards. This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted. Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'. Whatever we want. Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain. You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help. That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :) This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted. I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure. I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I
have replied in the tasks.
Thanks for making that clear. So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on. All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD. There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting relationship?). I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users. If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately. Regards, Konstantin On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:49 PM Konstantin Gizdov <arch@kge.pw> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments and explanations.
Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below)
Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted.
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
Whatever we want.
Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :)
This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted.
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure.
I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I
have replied in the tasks.
Thanks for making that clear.
So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be
sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting
relationship?).
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
Regards, Konstantin
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM Felix Yan <felixonmars@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 9/30/18 3:57 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
3. The packages do not provide the same functionality as before, but conflict with the AUR ones.
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in libafterimage, actually.
4. I wasn't told anything - my AUR package was deleted with a 'thanks for maintaining it' message.
That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :)
5. I've reported a few bugs FS#6024{6,7,8}, but have been denied resolution.
I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I have replied in the tasks.
- Why? - How many & which will be put into [community]?
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
- How can I effectively communicate the nuts & bolts to the new maintenaners so to say, to make sure users still get what's expected?
By opening bugs or send me an email directly if it's urgent.
Sorry for the confusion and late reply, it was very late in my TZ when I work on the packages.
-- Regards, Felix Yan