On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com
1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general.
keenerd wrote:
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.
Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500 schrieb keenerd<keenerd@gmail.com>:
find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best practices.....
This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues writing those AUR comments. That's too many.
As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results personally, before you write such AUR comments.
Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written very thoughtfully and are tested a lot.
And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even fake.
Heiko
I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them.
Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with disastrous consequences.
Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less -- Ionuț