On 12/05/2020 19.02, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
My AUR packages got reviewed recently by eschwartz, svenstaro and alad - thanks :) Just for the record -- I did not review your AUR packages, you may have intended to ask me to do so but this never happened. Perhaps you drafted
On 5/6/20 5:19 PM, Frederik Schwan via aur-general wrote: this email and forgot to remove my name before sending it?
I just looked at my git log. No we did not. Sorry, that was not intentional :( I thought we did a review when we talked about my bugwrangler application. But apparently we didn't.
You did provide a very useful kernel backports patch for my zfs-dkms package, which was much appreciated.
Thank you :)
If I become a TU, I'd like to focus on the bug tracker until we have a better solution. I'd also like to help out bug fixing when maintainers are busy, away or on vacation. I don't know what this means... once there is a "better solution for our bugtracker" you intend to not focus on it? :p
Becoming a TU might give more opportunities to commit fixes to packages, but it's unrelated to triage and analysis, at least, which I'd say are the things which need the most love.
So there's plenty to do there either way. :D (Speaking from personal experience, being a TU has made me less productive on the bugtracker.)
I am missing any experience of a TU's life, so any judgement from me would be arrogant imo. Though, I have experienced the rogue environment of the AUR and I think I'm well prepared to handle some of the packages in [community], where at least no one comments "PKGBUILD broken, `One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!`" :P I intend to keep the bugtracker as my first priority though :)
I'm aware though that some of these packages do not meet the criteria of 10 votes yet. I'll reevaluate whether they meet this criteria from time to time.
I'd also like to go on helping Eli with maintenance of zfs-dkms and zfs-utils in the AUR. Patches and suggestions are definitely welcome. :D
Though I doubt zfs is suitable in any way for inclusion in community, despite indeed having enough votes.
I don't think it's suitable for community either. I'd like to continue working with you in the AUR on it if you don't mind?
In case JetBrains is okay with us packaging their IDE's, I'd also maintain them. But so far all requests I found resulted in a negative response from JB. I'm given to understand packaging our current packages for pycharm/intellij community edition gives their current maintainers enough agonizing headaches. It seems like the kind of thing one would want to avoid getting involved in. :D
I don't think we should be packaging their custom JRE, anyway, as that should remain an AUR kind of thing (and we don't optdepends on AUR packages either). This probably makes it more complicated to support their stuff, especially for things which aren't open source?
tl;dr do you believe this is practical to focus on? Do you think they are likely to provide a way for us to package it which fits our packaging guidelines?
I don't intend to focus on this. I've been the maintainer of 5 JB packages for some time now and JB is a pretty prominent IDE creator. If there is some time I'd like to ask them how they think about repackaging their stuff. But before I'll help out on updating pycharm-community and intellij-idea-community to feel the pain first. :P Frederik