Hi all,
Thanks for the comments and explanations.
Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below)
Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted.
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
Whatever we want.
Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :)
This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted.
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure.
I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I
have replied in the tasks.
Thanks for making that clear.
So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be
sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting
relationship?).
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
Regards, Konstantin
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:49 PM Konstantin Gizdov arch@kge.pw wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments and explanations.
Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below)
Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted.
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
Whatever we want.
Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :)
This was not a complaint. Thanks, that's actually the only clue I had my packages were going somewhere and not just randomly deleted.
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure.
I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I
have replied in the tasks.
Thanks for making that clear.
So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be
sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting
relationship?).
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
Regards, Konstantin
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM Felix Yan felixonmars@archlinux.org wrote:
On 9/30/18 3:57 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
- The packages do not provide the same functionality as before, but
conflict with the AUR ones.
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in libafterimage, actually.
- I wasn't told anything - my AUR package was deleted with a 'thanks
for
maintaining it' message.
That's a message I entered manually each time, with respect :)
- I've reported a few bugs FS#6024{6,7,8}, but have been denied
resolution.
I do not intend to package the python2 variant. For the other two, I have replied in the tasks.
- Why?
- How many & which will be put into [community]?
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
- How can I effectively communicate the nuts & bolts to the new
maintenaners so to say, to make sure users still get what's expected?
By opening bugs or send me an email directly if it's urgent.
Sorry for the confusion and late reply, it was very late in my TZ when I work on the packages.
-- Regards, Felix Yan
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:51:47 +0100 Konstantin Gizdov arch@kge.pw wrote:
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
This entire paragraph is false. You tried to re-open all 3 tickets when only 2 were closed? On the two that you *did* request re-open, was was never denied.
We can access the history in the bug tracker, don't try to pass lies off as facts.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:59:28 -0500 Doug Newgard via aur-general aur-general@archlinux.org wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:51:47 +0100 Konstantin Gizdov arch@kge.pw wrote:
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails. The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
This entire paragraph is false. You tried to re-open all 3 tickets when only 2 were closed? On the two that you *did* request re-open, was was never denied.
That should read "one was never denied". Also Filipe never played a part in anything here other than commenting on the one ticket that was never closed.
We can access the history in the bug tracker, don't try to pass lies off as facts.
On 9/30/18 2:51 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments and explanations.
Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a conversation about it. (below)
Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted.
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails.
Because again, it's hardly a bug, and I'd say the fact that he didn't add one demonstrates that he *won't*?
The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation.
It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for the first time.
The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to me is 'denied'.
The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was never closed to begin with.
Whatever we want.
Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
Offtopic: I don't really understand this logic, copying something from a template like that if you know it's wrong, does not save any time. It's actually more work to do it wrongly like that.
Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that before). Maybe I was too harsh there. On the other hand, this email thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even though this is patently untrue.
So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear - not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be reached in realtime.
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
No one here is going to say it is or isn't an option (because we are a consensus so it doesn't entirely work that way), but if you want to apply, then the general process is described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#How_do_I_become_a_TU.3F
It essentially boils down to:
- find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by sponsoring you" - convince a voting majority of TUs that you're sufficiently capable and trustworthy to package things as a TU
It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for the first time.
Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken.
The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was
never closed to begin with.
Sure, had it wrong in memory. Emails check out.
That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to
suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be reached in realtime.
I'd have to say ROOT is unlike your regular software. I was preempting what proved to be the case and not really too worried about the small python packages and the smallest lib.
Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that before). Maybe I was too harsh there.
I was referring to an email exchange that happened 13-16 Oct on this list (you included) about me using python-scikit-learn as template and then people said there were major problems. I went and checked my emails this time to be very correct. But I think the `build_*()` thing maybe came from another package as commits don't match. But it's a long time ago and don't remember everything.
On the other hand, this email
thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even though this is patently untrue.
Well, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I felt I was being shunned and tried to be explicit in why I'm writing the email and what bothered me. Sorry, if someone was offended.
It essentially boils down to:
- find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by sponsoring you"
I've had a look at that list before and did again just now. I don't know any TUs personally and beyond asking here if someone is willing to sponsor me, I don't know what else to do.
Regards, Konstantin
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:16 PM Eli Schwartz via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 9/30/18 2:51 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the comments and explanations.
Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to
have a
conversation about it. (below)
Regarding FS#60248
Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was prompted.
Denied resolution?
... I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in emails.
Because again, it's hardly a bug, and I'd say the fact that he didn't add one demonstrates that he *won't*?
The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open without explanation/investigation.
It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for the first time.
The third bug was re-opened by Filipe after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That
to
me is 'denied'.
The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was never closed to begin with.
Whatever we want.
Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains this junk. (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set yourself up as the superior packager.)
I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below.
But
to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks
ago
in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages well. This package and another from same time around need a complete rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing,
but
that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from,
why
I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
Offtopic: I don't really understand this logic, copying something from a template like that if you know it's wrong, does not save any time. It's actually more work to do it wrongly like that.
Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that before). Maybe I was too harsh there. On the other hand, this email thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even though this is patently untrue.
So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me
for
this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to
make
even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two
new
features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I
am
not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something
clear -
not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be reached in realtime.
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to
maintain
ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends
on
it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how
to
maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I
also
understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as
I've
shown previously here and to its users.
If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix
thanks
for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
No one here is going to say it is or isn't an option (because we are a consensus so it doesn't entirely work that way), but if you want to apply, then the general process is described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#How_do_I_become_a_TU.3F
It essentially boils down to:
- find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by sponsoring you"
- convince a voting majority of TUs that you're sufficiently capable and trustworthy to package things as a TU
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 10/1/18 2:51 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure.
Yes I did check the comments, which turned out to be a very old comment about extra dependencies in rxvt-unicode-afterimage if enabled. Since the mentioned package doesn't even exist today, I believe it's not an issue anymore.
There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be
sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting
relationship?).
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
Glad to see your TU application, it would be great if you will maintain the related software in the official repositories instead, as you are definitely more familiar and I have too many packages already :)
(I somehow forgot to reply to the question above, sorry for the late reply!)
Yes I did check the comments, which turned out to be a very old comment about extra dependencies in rxvt-unicode-afterimage if enabled. Since the mentioned package doesn't even exist today, I believe it's not an issue anymore.
That's good. I had to recompile `root` to properly link the other day and can confirm it worked for me, just wasn't sure in general as I couldn't find the history anymore.
On 14/10/2018 22:19, Felix Yan wrote:
On 10/1/18 2:51 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
I believe that is not true. I even enabled more functionality in
libafterimage, actually.
You mean when you removed `--disable-svg` flag? I might be wrong, but I think there was a reason to leave it disabled. You'd have to check comments or Gentoo/Fedora package to be sure.
Yes I did check the comments, which turned out to be a very old comment about extra dependencies in rxvt-unicode-afterimage if enabled. Since the mentioned package doesn't even exist today, I believe it's not an issue anymore.
There's precedence for maintainers of specialized software in the AUR to be
sponsored to become a Trusted User (though it seems there's a preexisting
relationship?).
I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've shown previously here and to its users.
Glad to see your TU application, it would be great if you will maintain the related software in the official repositories instead, as you are definitely more familiar and I have too many packages already :)
(I somehow forgot to reply to the question above, sorry for the late reply!)
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org