On 21/06/2021 17:58, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 6/18/21 1:59 PM, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote:
If my existing packages or former FOSS involvement doesn't give enough fodder for discussion, lets try some unpopular opinions:
Speaking of unpopular opinions, holy cow.
It appears you've been agitating on the AUR comments for some duplicates of the community/audacity package:
""" @yochananmarqos The Arch [community] package has been flagged out of date for over a year. When exactly is it okay to move on and post an AUR package? I'd say the delete flag should be dropped and re-filed when the repo package is up to date. Yes I know v3 hasn't been out that long, but the minor version bump on the v2 series that was missed a year ago had other fixes that pushed me to switch to audacity-git, now that is broken. This package seems quite reasonable given the circumstances. """
So if I understand correctly, you believe that the official rules of the AUR apply as usual, *EXCEPT* for the exact case they're intended to target?
audacity 3 is released in March, some AUR users are upset it isn't being updated in [community] fast enough.
But... the rules of the AUR state that you must not take this opportunity to upload "audacity-but-actually-kept-up-to-date" style packages.
Your straightforward defense of this is that... a year ago, a minor version bump took too long also, and therefore "given the circumstances" it's reasonable to just up and violate the rules of the AUR because this one package is just, idk, too irresponsibly maintained in [community]?
Given the purpose of the Trusted Users to whom you are applying, is not just to publish packages in [community], but also to moderate and keep order in the AUR, I find it extremely relevant that halfway through an otherwise decent application you are advocating for this sort of thing.
Just for those unfamiliar with the situation, audacity is still at 2.8 in [community] because of difficulties to package it without vendored custom forks. Ostensibly AUR users aren't interested in those details and post an "updated" repo duplicate.
So yes, I definitely agree with the argument. The people supposed to enforce AUR rules should enforce them, not encourage people to go against them.