On 07/17/2013 08:02 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

It's nice to see someone apply who is willing to maitain the D toolchain. But are you willing to maintain non-related D packages in [community] which are currently orphan or is there a certain category of packages you like to maintain?

I have no objections against maintaining some orphans not related to D but that will be something of lesser priority and importance. For me main focus is core D tool chain (dmd, gdc, ldc, dtools, phobos, tango, probably dub and dstep if those get enough votes) and any application/library written in D (guess vibed currently is only candidate here, so this set stays empty for some time).

On 07/17/2013 11:52 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:

...

I have been using Arch Linux for last ~5 years but that does not really matter as I have never spent any considerable time maintaining packages. Do you use Arch as your main computer OS? On servers ? On testing vm ?

All of those. main one on home PC + powers my VPS + supplementary 32bit VM for testing packages/libraries.

What's about you? Where are you from? What's your name? Do you ride horses?

Hey, Arch Wiki did not mention any questionnaire that needs to be answered! ;) Well, my name is Michael (Михаил Страшун), age 24. I am originally from Latvia, ethnically Russian. Currently located in Berlin, programming in D for a living. No horse riding. Was quite seriously into Greek-Roman wrestling for almost a decade but was prohibited to take any burst physical load after recovering from a cerebral stroke. These days just do coding 24/7. Favor Internet anarchists. Anything specific you'd like to know?

I quickly looked your packages in AUR and they seems good. If I may formulate small advices: - Your quoting of $srcdir and $pkgdir is missing. Those variables can have space ; - No need to "cd $srcdir" at the beginning of package() ; - It's bertter to use install instead of mkdir and cp ;

Thanks!

- Try to avoid versionned dependencies (like 'dmd>=2.063' ).

That is not accident, I do precisely know that it won't work with dmd 2.062 - I am one of contributors to that project. Best regards, Dicebot

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/20/2013 12:26 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:

Almost all packages may have versioned dependencies, and we don't do that. It's not because we don't know the minimum required version. As we are a rolling release, we know that the system must be upgraded completly. So you need to check the current version in repositories (and update it if it's not enough). In this case, dmd is in version 2.063.2 in a stable and official repository, why do you need a versioned deps specifically?

I doubt anyone really "needs" them but I have found it to be a nice self-documenting feature so far, matter of minor convenience. Until very recently dmd releases has plenty of breaking changes and practical D users usually waited some time before updating to fresh release until those issues are taken care of. In that sense differentiating between programs that work only on latest release and ones that work on at least last two can be pretty useful. Guess that is only applicable to AUR stuff. It is nothing of real importance but question is, what harm does explicit versioning do? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21-beta20 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR6o7eAAoJEHYfrWm6BsapjkQH/iuMPffBPsSZCA9RQVygCVV6 m1qtJgBxguVlnAnE7relps0r3BPyhd8RCSuW9pRBNdDmN673WG4KT0U3jI1GXSYR NKnClRKMZeFq3t+vwARX8Sm5H0Yk6Hir3zTF5PGJfAiNJmqYW5+xAUf3GrxKWNIJ jaEsCxM5vOfGR1JxPo9ZgFxDPE4oa5tTlmVbwulVkahTdqXueH52syc4crDKs5qU YfzY3G2roUOiqwfHSXdi+pon3MaTL+KxV1At0A6yTTmcoTqZEF3ZxOi/IvqOBTpM hhoOuL8hjapQe+v8FODRWv3fm7giOg7cO+HTP+BJoDLYbPntG3RiFf8qS3V4BYE= =6lLS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 20/07/13 09:53 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Dicebot wrote:

...

It is nothing of real importance but question is, what harm does explicit versioning do? Interesting question because it underlines some benefits of being a rolling release for their maintainers.

1) Productivity You don't need to modify your package deps each time you update it. You only have to check (most of time, read the changelog). When upstream check this for you, in a configure or by providing a test suite, you could even forget the minimal version check and free your mind to do interesting things. Arch maintainers manage a high number of packages, every unnecessary update is time lost.

2) Correctness More than avoid unnecessary changes in the update process, it avoid mistakes (and their fixes). When upstream doesn't provides minimal deps, it's long (and not easy) to find which minimal version is really required.

3) Troublemaker The version is about a package, *NOT* an upstream source.

I remember a discussion with a Debian developer about opening a bugfix because the required dep version is badly too high. A maintainer, wants a lib compiled with an option (e.g. --with-caca), so he bumps the lib version (e.g. from 1.15-1 to 1.15-2) and require it in his package (e.g: from 1.10-1 to 1.15-2). The old versions (from 1.10 to 1.15 in the previous example) of the library is working perfectly (if you rebuild the package with the option --with-caca). Its happens (sometimes) when you do a backport on Debian.

You don't know, by looking at it, if a required version is due to upstream or downstream change. These are good reasons why a package maintainer should not obsess over finding the minimum required versions for everything. But if you already happen to know what they are, users who recompile packages or do other customization would appreciate this information.

4) Speed It avoid pacman to checks version for each deps. This save a lot of useless computing (parsing and comparing two version)[1]. Even if it's not a big deal on last intel processor, this is noticeable on slow processor (like raspberry pie, alix or soekris).

We can resume these 4 points by saying : It's more simple.

Of course there is drawback for people not updating the whole system. It's unsupported.

Those processors are no more supported than partial updates.

On 20/07/13 12:40 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:

...

On 20/07/13 09:53 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:

...

4) Speed It avoid pacman to checks version for each deps. This save a lot of useless computing (parsing and comparing two version)[1]. Even if it's not a big deal on last intel processor, this is noticeable on slow processor (like raspberry pie, alix or soekris).

We can resume these 4 points by saying : It's more simple.

Of course there is drawback for people not updating the whole system. It's unsupported.

Those processors are no more supported than partial updates.

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Connor Behan wrote: pacman doesn't have Arch Linux-specific stuff but other distros / systems should be running on powerful processors because pacman devs don't care about slower ones?

For some of the other distro's PKGBUILDs, it may very well be advisable to omit ">, <, >=, <=, =". I just don't think this can be used to argue that the i686 and x86_64 PKGBUILDs in Arch should as well.

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Dicebot wrote:

It is nothing of real importance but question is, what harm does explicit versioning do?

Correct me if I overlooked it, but from what I have read here, but I have yet to see an argument that applies to the specific case here. AUR users are factually more vulnerable to missing versions on dependencies (for an added upstream feature) than repository packages, because enforcement of AUR client state is up to the sysadmin/aur helper. This might not apply to the community repository, I just got the feeling things won't be eaten as hot as they were cooked here. cheers! mar77i

Martti Kühne wrote:

things won't be eaten as hot as they were cooked here.

Off-topic: I thought that was a really nice expression. Is it idiomatic where you're from? Regards, Xyne

On 20.07.2013 15:48, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

On 15.07.2013 22:31, Dicebot wrote:

...

[sponsor : Sven-Hendrik Haase] [AUR account : https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Dicebot] [IRC : Dicebot @ irc.freenode.net]

Hello,

Long story short - I am insterested in becoming a Trusted User and taking care of packages related to D programming language.

I have been using Arch Linux for last ~5 years but that does not really matter as I have never spent any considerable time maintaining packages. What does matter though is that I am quite active member of D community and familiar with minor details about its current infrastructure and have personal interest in improving user experience in that domain.

I have been maintaing reference D compiler package (dmd2) in AUR before its inclusion into main repositories and kept contacting Sven-Hendrik with various improvement proposals after. At some point in the relatively long mail thread he has suggested to make a TU application so that I can take over those packages and maintain them directly - which is the primary motivating reason behind this mail.

As my general competence level as a packager relatively low I am planning to solely focus on domain I am proficient with - D compilers, libraries and notable applications. Also contacting with D maintainers in other distros to ensure reasonable consistency.

Regards,

Dicebot Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69 Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Felix Yan wrote:

...

On 20.07.2013 15:48, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

On 15.07.2013 22:31, Dicebot wrote:

...

[sponsor : Sven-Hendrik Haase] [AUR account : https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Dicebot] [IRC : Dicebot @ irc.freenode.net]

Hello,

Long story short - I am insterested in becoming a Trusted User and taking care of packages related to D programming language.

I have been using Arch Linux for last ~5 years but that does not really matter as I have never spent any considerable time maintaining

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 18:31:23 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: packages.

...

...

...

What does matter though is that I am quite active member of D community and familiar with minor details about its current infrastructure and have personal interest in improving user experience in that domain.

I have been maintaing reference D compiler package (dmd2) in AUR before its inclusion into main repositories and kept contacting Sven-Hendrik with various improvement proposals after. At some point in the relatively long mail thread he has suggested to make a TU application so that I can take over those packages and maintain them directly - which is the primary motivating reason behind this mail.

As my general competence level as a packager relatively low I am planning to solely focus on domain I am proficient with - D compilers, libraries and notable applications. Also contacting with D maintainers in other distros to ensure reasonable consistency.

Regards,

Dicebot Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69 Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

Congrats!

Regards, Felix Yant

Omedeto gozaimasu ( ^ ω ^ ) -- Maxime

On 07/27/2013 10:09 AM, Dicebot wrote:

On 07/27/2013 06:31 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

...

Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69 Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

Thanks!

Guess this answers the question "what to do during this weekend" :)

Welcome to the team. -- Federico Cinelli (cinelli.federico@gmail.com) Arch Linux - Trusted User [Key:0xF15447D5] Cinelli Motorsports LLC - Boss Cinelli Thoughts - Writer

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Laurent Carlier wrote:

Le samedi 27 juillet 2013 19:09:21 Dicebot a écrit :

...

On 07/27/2013 06:31 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

...

Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69

Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

Thanks!

Guess this answers the question "what to do during this weekend" :)

welcome! Welcome aboard!

-- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A

On 2013-07-27 18:31 +0200 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69 Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but the proposal has not been accepted according to our bylaws. I was going to post the final tally on the list as per custom: yes: 18 no: 4 abstain: 2 total: 24 I thought that was a low number of votes given the recent influx of TUs, so I checked the total number of TUs listed on the official page (https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/). There are currently 37 active TUs. According to our bylaws (https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html):

Quorum shall be 66% of all active TUs and participation shall be measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. The proposal is accepted if EITHER

the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs OR

quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes

18/37 < 0.5, so the first condition has not met (19 yes votes needed) 24/37 < 0.66, so the second condition has not been met (25 total votes needed for quorum) I voted yes, so I do want this to pass, but if we just ignore the bylaws whenever it's convenient then there's not much point to having bylaws. We could hold a vote to make an exception in this instance, but I'm not sure that's the best way either. It would set a precedent for overriding the bylaws through simple majority. Regards, Xyne

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Xyne wrote:

On 2013-07-27 18:31 +0200 Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

...

Discussion period has ended. Start the voting: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=69 Le voting period has ended. Dicebot-san is now officially Dicebot-sama! Let's perform our ritual new-TU-group-hug. Congratulations!

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but the proposal has not been accepted according to our bylaws. I was going to post the final tally on the list as per custom:

yes: 18 no: 4 abstain: 2 total: 24

I thought that was a low number of votes given the recent influx of TUs, so I checked the total number of TUs listed on the official page (https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/).

There are currently 37 active TUs. According to our bylaws (https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html):

...

Quorum shall be 66% of all active TUs and participation shall be measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. The proposal is accepted if EITHER

the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs OR

quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes

18/37 < 0.5, so the first condition has not met (19 yes votes needed)

24/37 < 0.66, so the second condition has not been met (25 total votes needed for quorum)

I voted yes, so I do want this to pass, but if we just ignore the bylaws whenever it's convenient then there's not much point to having bylaws. We could hold a vote to make an exception in this instance, but I'm not sure that's the best way either. It would set a precedent for overriding the bylaws through simple majority.

Regards, Xyne

Perhaps we could just run the vote again, because it would be be silly for this to be determined by a 2% gap from the required quorum. I also have my doubts that there are really 37 *active* trusted users. I managed to miss the announcement that the voting period has started because I haven't been keeping up with various mailing lists this week. If it means anything, I did plan on voting YES before life came along and distracted me.

On 2013-07-27 20:49, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:

according to this list, we have 36 active TUs.

Actually I see 35 TUs there, 33 without Daenyth and xyproto. It seems like a good opportunity to determine what does "active TU" mean – some Trusted Users, even if active in packaging terms, simply ignore our votes. When do we consider someone as active? When he updates, fixes and rebuilds his packages in reasonable time or doesn't forget about voting? If we care about all the duties, should we remove partially inactive TUs? -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski http://bpiotrowski.pl/

----------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 17:53:52 +0000 From: xyne@archlinux.ca To: aur-general@archlinux.org Subject: Re: [aur-general] TU application

...

I thought that was a low number of votes given the recent influx of TUs, so I checked the total number of TUs listed on the official page (https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/).

There are currently 37 active TUs. According to our bylaws (https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html):

...

Regards, Xyne

Dave Reisner is still on that list. He resigned from being a TU back in March [1]   [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022625.html