Hi, Allan McRae wrote:

Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

Bob (Finch) asked for his community packages to be removed. I wrote a little script to help with it. It's not documented and has some rough edges, but it should give you a nice base to hack on. Enjoy :)

Two things here...

Did Bob quit as a TU or just pulled all his packages from the repo?

And, I do not see many of his old packages in the AUR. e.g. fldigi, fdlog. Is that accidental?

What does removing from community mean (in this case), anyway? Just moving from community to unsupported or REALLY removing altogether? If the latter is the case, should that be done? Is a maintainer (now I'm talking mainly about TUs) really actually an owner in the sense that he/she can decide to just delete PKDBUILDs of his/her packages? (I'm sorry if I'm misreading it all but such a possibility scares me a bit.) Ondřej -- Cheers, Ondřej Kučera

2008/12/18 Allan McRae :

Ondřej Kučera wrote:

...

Hi,

Allan McRae wrote:

...

Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

Bob (Finch) asked for his community packages to be removed. I wrote a little script to help with it. It's not documented and has some rough edges, but it should give you a nice base to hack on. Enjoy :)

Two things here...

Did Bob quit as a TU or just pulled all his packages from the repo?

And, I do not see many of his old packages in the AUR. e.g. fldigi, fdlog. Is that accidental?

What does removing from community mean (in this case), anyway? Just moving from community to unsupported or REALLY removing altogether? If the latter is the case, should that be done? Is a maintainer (now I'm talking mainly about TUs) really actually an owner in the sense that he/she can decide to just delete PKDBUILDs of his/her packages? (I'm sorry if I'm misreading it all but such a possibility scares me a bit.)

It should mean moving them from [community] to the AUR, which is why I am querying what happened to a few of these packages. But, the PKGBUILDs for anything that was in [community] can always be recovered from CVS.

Allan

He said before that he was planning to resign, I don't know his current plans. He wanted his packages removed entirely and he deleted any in unsupported that he had made. I think the reason was that previously when others had adopted his packages, they removed his contributor data and replaced it with theirs, and he didn't want that happening again. When I said that I would move the community ones to unsupported he asked that I wait until they were set up on his personal repo for his distro. Those aren't the full details, but should summarize.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

I feel removed of packages completely from the AUR violates Trusted User status. We stopped users doing this specifically because we did not want this to happen. I will be starting a removal thread.

I couldn't agree more. CVS history should still have the packages though, right?

Aaron... you said you wanted people to host their own binary repos for little used packages in the very first emails about this subject several weeks ago. You have nothing since then to refute this. I am merely agreeing and was preparing to do exactly that. Daenyth helped me to do this after a TU irc channel discussion about your wishes in this area. People remembered them and everyone agreed that it was my decision to remove something as EVERY TU currently has that right and we have never voted otherwise. Also logically having PKGBUILDs in two places or even binaries in two places makes no sense for either Arch or myself because of support any "syncing" issues with pacman and in consideration of other long standing issues with plagarism. I am concerned that neither you nor Allan could have waited for a simple explanation. Bob F. P.S... I already resigned. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

...

I feel removed of packages completely from the AUR violates Trusted User status. We stopped users doing this specifically because we did not want this to happen. I will be starting a removal thread.

I couldn't agree more. CVS history should still have the packages though, right?

It creates syncing issues when things are upgraded. And Archlinux unfortunately has never dealt with the plagiarism issues when someone leaves let alone these syncing issues as a result. Bob Finch On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Xavier wrote:

...

Aaron... you said you wanted people to host their own binary repos for little used packages in the very first emails about this subject several weeks ago. You have nothing since then to refute this.

I am merely agreeing and was preparing to do exactly that. Daenyth helped me to do this after a TU irc channel discussion about your wishes in this area. People remembered them and everyone agreed that it was my decision to remove something as EVERY TU currently has that right and we have never voted otherwise.

Also logically having PKGBUILDs in two places or even binaries in two

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:02 AM, w9ya wrote: places

...

makes no sense for either Arch or myself because of support any "syncing" issues with pacman and in consideration of other long standing issues with plagarism.

If the PKGBUILDs are on AUR and the binaries in your repos, then everything is is one place. What is wrong with that?

That way, all users are still free to install packages in the traditional ways : If the package is in an official repo (core, extra, community), then he can install a binary directly If the package is not in any official repo, then it should be in AUR/unsupported and the user can retrieve the PKGBUILD from AUR and build it.

On top of that, packages in AUR/unsupported could also exist in unofficial binary repos, for convenience to the users who trust these repos.