Am Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:59:15 +0200 schrieb PyroPeter <abi1789@googlemail.com>:

Commenting on a package should send an e-mail to the maintainer, so, in my opinion, sending a private e-mail is redundant. Adding a comment also has the advantage of being publicly visible.

Regards, PyroPeter

Generally you are right. But there are cases in which the maintainer hasn't activated the "Notify" button (in the past it wasn't activated by default) or didn't update his AUR user profile when he changed his e-mail address. So the maintainer should, of course, first be contacted by adding an AUR comment. But if he doesn't reply, I think it should be tried by sending a private e-mail to his e-mail address in his profile and in the PKGBUILD. It happened once that a maintainer didn't respond to my comment and neither to my private e-mail I sent to his address in his user profile. Then I looked at the PKGBUILD, found another e-mail address, contacted him again and got a response pretty fast. Well, that's not the usual case and usually shouldn't happen. And one could argue that it's his own fault. Heiko

On 9/23/10, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

Did you send a private e-mail to the maintainer? Not before now.

And you should only ask for orphaning if you really want to adopt and maintain this package as you told the current maintainer to do so in the AUR comments. Well, I wasn't thinking of adopting anything but bumping at least chrome-beta when there's an update available until an active maintainer would take my place.

Btw., last update of chromium-beta was 15 Sep 2010, one week ago. So the maintainer seems to be active. No, it was me who did that.

And what do you want with a Rapidshare download in a PKGBUILD? In a PKGBUILD? If you meant that why did I upload a single PKGBUILD to Rapidshare, you should know that I uploaded the whole tarball (including the .install file, desktop file, etc.)

Thanks for your time, Det

On 9/23/10, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

You always should contact the maintainer before you send an orphan request to the mailing list. I know that. I just didn't remember it so can you let it go already? Are you obsessed about being right or something :)?

Regularly "bumping" if there's an update means maintaining a package. Either you want to maintain a package or not. But you shouldn't regularly send orphan request, update a package once, orphan it by yourself, and send an orphan request again if someone else has adopted a package.

Either you adopt a package and maintain it or you should leave it alone. You are missing the point here. What I was _not_ doing was bumping chromium-beta and asking everybody adopting it in the meantime to give the package back to me.

Btw., chrome-beta was first commited on 20 Aug 2010, only one month ago. So the maintainer probably hasn't been inactive and the package was not that outdated. Flagging the package as out-of-date and contacting the maintainer could have been sufficient. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you meant that JerichoKru was the original maintainer of chromium-beta then it's wrong. Simply checking

What I _was_ doing was to bump it as soon as there is an update but keep the package orphaned until an active maintainer would choose to adopt the package so that my job would obviously not be needed - unlike in this case where the maintainer hasn't updated the package for 8 days (a long time for _me_ - no, I'm not saying it's a long time to your or anybody else) and I have reasons to believe that he will not be that fast in updating the package in the future either. This is now the third time I'm saying the same thing. the PKGBUILD or putting a thought on checking the comments section shows that "Markus Golser" (or "elmargol") was the original maintainer.

And why is JerichoKru the maintainer and not you? And if you really had adopted the package, updated it and orphaned it at once, why are you now asking for orphaning this package again? Uh, so that it could be updated? So that it would keep on being updated?

It has a maintainer - I don't know if he's the original one - and it is not that outdated if at all. And if you regularly want to update an orphaned package then adopt it and keep it and don't always orphan it. Same thing here.

You put several times a link to a tarball at Rapidshare. You can't put a Rapidshare link into the source array of a PKGBUILD. Ehm... :).

In case this tarball was your updated PKGBUILD, you know Pastebin? And you've read what's written on the package site? On every package site you find this note written in a big font size: "Please use a pastebin or email to post PKGBUILDs, patches, or scripts." Heiko, perhaps you need to start putting a thought when reading other people's writings. This text here does _not_ mean "put every single PKGBUILD, patch and/or script in Pastebin" but rather "please do not bloat the comments section by pasting PKGBUILDs, patches and/or scripts in the _comments section_". If you actually think that anything else than Pastebin shouldn't be used based on that comment then perhaps you could please leave this conversation here, as it is. I've already told you why I want the package to be orphaned and if you just refuse to believe it should be done, then OK: that's your opinion and you've already made it clear.

Thanks for your time, Det

On 9/23/10, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

I didn't say that you're asking everybody adopting it And I didn't say you did.

but you ask to orphaning it if someone else already has adopted it because it was orphaned. No, I only asked a maintainer who wasn't so fast with updating the package as I was.

And "bumping" the package is the maintainer's job. So if you orphan it you tell the people: "Please take it if you want." If someone else takes it he usually wants to maintain it and does it. And if he doesn't update it fast enough in your opinion then you should have kept the package and should have maintained it by yourself. That's the point. And it's a good point except for the part where this is the first time this thing happened. Of course, I'm not going to maintain the package as an actual _maintainer_ - so that doesn't really matter.

And the maintainer sometimes could have to do something else than just updating the package every second day, just because you are too impatient. Sure, but not with all maintainers. Some do have the time but still won't update their packages. I hope this is not one of those cases.

Otherwise I would suggest you to download the package to /var/abs/local and maintain it by yourself locally on your system. Then you can update it as often as possible. Actually I don't even use the package. I just like to update it to others.

And why did you orphan this package if you want to maintain it by yourself after all? I do and I don't :).

Regularly updating a package is that which is called maintaining a package. You have orphaned the package, so you don't want to maintain it, so you don't want to regularly update the package, so live with it. You had the chance to maintain it, because you didn't need to orphan the package. It was your choice. Actually, in AUR I did a 4 months stretch of doing exactly this with my packages. Why? So that anybody could update my package when I would was unable to. It never meant I would not want to maintain my packages. That wasn't exactly what I was doing with this package but still, when _I_ just bump a package it does _not_ necessarily mean I don't want to regularly update it since I disowned as soon as I did it.

Good thing, if the users don't care about having the latest versions all the time. They are the ones who need to "live with" it.

It means both. It says clearly to either using Pastebin or to send it to the maintainer by e-mail. Which doesn't mean only e-mail and Pastebin can be used. They don't need to list and think of every possible option to upload the PKGBUILD. It's enough when people get the main idea.

I wouldn't download and review such a package if someone would send me such a link in my comments. Are _you_ the maintainer of this package :)?

And you shouldn't always upload a new, updated package somewhere and put the link to it to the AUR comments. You can assume that the maintainer knows how to update his package. Sure. I just like making things easy.

You really should decide whether you want to maintain a package or not. Not in the sense you are thinking of. Something we both agree on :).

And you should only send an orphan request if you really want to maintain a package and keep maintaining it. That's a little ambiguous but generally speaking you are right.

So to wrap this all up, I would just like to have an active maintainer for that package but it's not something I really "need" since I don't even use the package. Thanks for your time, Det

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:

...

And "bumping" the package is the maintainer's job. So if you orphan it you tell the people: "Please take it if you want." If someone else takes it he usually wants to maintain it and does it. And if he doesn't update it fast enough in your opinion then you should have kept the package and should have maintained it by yourself. That's the point. And it's a good point except for the part where this is the first time this thing happened. Of course, I'm not going to maintain the package as an actual _maintainer_ - so that doesn't really matter.

Please. There is obviously some sort of miscommunication between you two, so arguing is redundant. Now, to clarify: Bumping a package everytime there is a version is the *definition* of maintaining a package. Please choose wisely. While I don't mind orphaning an out of date package that you would like to maintain, these constant orphan and deletion requests flooding my inbox are starting to get on my nerves. To put it simply, please be patient with AUR package maintainers. If they do not update in a few weeks, there is most likely a good reason. Contact them, wait a couple more weeks, and if then they still don't respond, send an email to aur-general. Besides, if you truly needed an up-to-date package, modifying the PKGBUILD to fit the next release usually isn't that difficult. Now, if myself or any other TU is behind on a package, feel free to send threatening, hate-filled emails to try and motivate us to do our job. :-) Thanks, Brad

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

...

Now, to clarify: Bumping a package everytime there is a version is the *definition* of maintaining a package.

Of course this is the definition of maintaining a package. But this doesn't have to be done within 2 or 3 hours after upstream has released a new version. And an orphan request shouldn't be sent 2 or 3 hours after upstream has released the new version.

That wasn't directed at you. Rather, I meant it for Det, in which I was trying to tell him that his statements were conradictive. "Bumping a package each release" is exactly the same as "maintaining a package". I realize that you (Det) wanted to maintain the package until someone came along and took it from you, but there is really no point to that. If you are going to maintain something, adopt it until someone asks to take it off of your hands. Do not just adopt something, change the PKGBUILD each upstream release, and then orphan it right away. It just makes everything seem messy, and it is really not needed. If you hand the baton off to a new maintainer and that person seems to neglect it for a *long* period of time (and you have already contacted them about it!), only then should you send a message here.

Btw., it also happens every now and then that it takes some weeks until a package in [core] and [extra] is updated even if it's flagged as out-of-date. And there's no problem with that.

Sorry, that was my fail attempt at a joke. :-P Thanks, Brad

On 24 September 2010 05:07, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:

...

Now, to clarify: Bumping a package everytime there is a version is the *definition* of maintaining a package.

Of course this is the definition of maintaining a package. But this doesn't have to be done within 2 or 3 hours after upstream has released a new version. And an orphan request shouldn't be sent 2 or 3 hours after upstream has released the new version.

From the way I see it, complaints about delays usually come from those using an AUR helper. This is because it breaks their habit of getting

That is _not_ the "definition" of "maintaining a package", it is "part" of the maintenance. Everyone has a life, and everyone has a choice. This is the bazaar. It is correct that rapid action is applauded, but it is not a requirement for ownership of a package. If anyone is unhappy with the frequency or time it takes for the owner to update her package(s), the concerned can either update the copy of the buildscripts locally and inform everyone else how to do it, or, request to orphan the package so she can help maintain instead and provide the rapid action which was previously lacking. Of course, that does not mean we would gladly comply with such a request. the package retrieved, built, and installed with one command upon receiving the RSS feed of an upstream release announcement.

And one (in this case Det) should decide if one wants to maintain the package or not. That is, one shouldn't adopt a package, update it, orphan it, wait until the package is adopted by someone else, and then send an orphan request to the mailing list, because the new maintainer of a package which oneself doesn't use doesn't update it within 2 or 3 hours.

That is not what I call "sane behaviour". Something must be wrong somewhere.

On 24 September 2010 05:34, Brad Fanella <bradfanella@archlinux.us> wrote:

I don't think what I'm saying here is being clearly understood. :-(

Sorry, I missed the whole Det business. All in all, that kind of contribution (what Det appears to be doing) is not encouraged, but it _is_ somewhat of a contribution. From the way I see it, he's just a concerned party, preemptive about the fate of a particular package. But yes, he's definitely not maintaining any package if all he does is adopt, update, disown. He's just Robin Hood, or..

Am Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:38:27 -0500 schrieb Brad Fanella <bradfanella@archlinux.us>:

It's fine. :-) I just wanted someone to confirm my sanity!

Confirmed. :-) Heiko

On 09/23/2010 04:30 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:

...

On 24 September 2010 05:34, Brad Fanella <bradfanella@archlinux.us> wrote:

...

I don't think what I'm saying here is being clearly understood. :-( Sorry, I missed the whole Det business. All in all, that kind of contribution (what Det appears to be doing) is not encouraged, but it _is_ somewhat of a contribution. From the way I see it, he's just a concerned party, preemptive about the fate of a particular package.

It's fine. :-) I just wanted someone to confirm my sanity!

Note to readers: This is not implying that help on the AUR is not appriciated; rather, if you are going to update a package multiple times, please adopt it to make life easier. And use orphan requests as a last resort!

Thanks, Brad This is where 'multiple owners' of a package would be useful (I know its already been discussed a week ago). Besides the maintainer assigning a secondary maintainer, some maintainers could perhaps be given to option to say, in effect, "anyone interested can be my second maintainer", but

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 17:38 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote: that person's maintainership does not affect the maintainership of the first maintainer.

Or something like that...

The reason I've seen against that is that someone could edit a PKGBUILD in order to include malicious content (not like they couldn't do it already, though only with new/orphaned packages). Overall I do think that the ability to allow multiple maintainers would be a good idea since it allows for group collaboration (similar to how subversion repositories allow multiple maintainers). Smartboy

Ray Rashif wrote:

...

I don't think what I'm saying here is being clearly understood. :-(

Sorry, I missed the whole Det business. All in all, that kind of contribution (what Det appears to be doing) is not encouraged, but it _is_ somewhat of a contribution. From the way I see it, he's just a concerned party, preemptive about the fate of a particular package.

But yes, he's definitely not maintaining any package if all he does is adopt, update, disown. He's just Robin Hood, or..

It's like feeding a stray cat. You might not want to or be able to adopt it and take care of it full-time, but you don't want to let it starve to death either, so you keep feeding it while hoping someone else will adopt it and take care of it instead. When someone finally does, you get upset when you notice that the cat isn't being fed and that you can no longer feed it yourself because it's locked up indoors, so you call [AR]SPCA (or PETA, if you're really upset). The only unreasonable factor here is the impatience. If you camp outside the new owner's house and start screaming about animal abuse as soon as the owner is more than half an hour late, something's wrong. Ok, I may have stretched that a little too far. Analogies aside, if the package was that important to you and you were effectively maintaining it anyway, then you should have just kept it until someone else offered to maintain it (or you no longer could). Disowning a package generally nullifies your future bitching rights regarding the maintenance of that package. Btw, this is my new favorite quote:

There's no miscommunication at least not on my side.

The sincerity makes it an instant classic. XD

Great, So back to the basics: 1) My intentions were _never_ to send an orphan request of a package that hasn't been updated in 2 to 3 hours. The person who came up with that is at least as silly as I was. 2) Funny. I'm not going to send an orhpan request to an official package after I see it's out of date. Perhaps I would also call the president of USA every time a flu has been spotted in my country in case it possibly spread to USA and killed every people there? 3) Yes, for chrissake, I _do_ realize that when I disowned the package I "gave up my rights" or in whatever way you wanna phrase it. No need to say that on every other mail. And I should've never sent the first mail in the first place. 4) As it turns out, JerichoKru was not the kinda maintainer I thought he might be so this whole talk about the correct orhpan/maintenance philosophy no longer necessary. I really don't think there's anything here that hasn't or needs to be mentioned. I don't even use the package so I don't really care about its future anymore. It's up to JerichoKru and its future maintainers Thanks for your time, Det