Hello, upstream ('extra' repo), at some point the vte3 package has been split into vte-common, vte3 and vte4. vte3 and vte4 do not conflict and they both depend on vte-common. On the aur, the vte3-git package was recently orphaned and was adopted by that absurd guy I had the misfortune to interact with a couple months ago already. You know, the one who has kept its obscene insults towards me online in that package comments without any shame. So, this person hoards both vte3-git and vte4-git and keeps them conflicting. Now a couple days ago even a trusted user intervened erroneously; I assume he didn't pay much attention to dates or changes upstream. What's happening bothers me to the point I think I'd like to ask two of you to act as trustees for a TU election round. I maintain around 700 packages and I will maintain way more very soon.
Le 04/07/2023 à 03:30, Pellegrino Prevete a écrit :
Hello, Hi, upstream ('extra' repo), at some point the vte3 package has been split into vte-common, vte3 and vte4. vte3 and vte4 do not conflict and they both depend on vte-common.
On the aur, the vte3-git package was recently orphaned and was adopted by that absurd guy I had the misfortune to interact with a couple months ago already.
You know, the one who has kept its obscene insults towards me online in that package comments without any shame.
So, this person hoards both vte3-git and vte4-git and keeps them conflicting.
I've reviewed every comments of the vte3-git and vte4-git AUR package and I couldn't find the "obscene insults" you're referring to. If you have legit evidence of such obscene insults, please provide them so we can act accordingly.
Now a couple days ago even a trusted user intervened erroneously; I assume he didn't pay much attention to dates or changes upstream. That trusted user didn't intervened erroneously. Merging vte{3,4}-git into vte-git will actually break the latter as vte-git depends on both of them [1] [2]. That and the fact that the latest merge request you made for vte4-git [3] claims "[...] also maintainership won't be lost with merge." makes me think that you don't know how merge requests actually works [4]. What's happening bothers me to the point I think I'd like to ask two of you to act as trustees for a TU election round. So you basically want to apply as a TU for the sole purpose of having "enough power" to solve this personal war yourself? I don't think "being bothered enough by this to the point you'd like to apply as a TU" on its own is a legit reason that will get two of us to consider a sponsoring. I maintain around 700 packages and I will maintain way more very soon.
There's no competition here. Maintaining a lot of packages doesn't give you more "power" or "legitimacy" than another. Please, maintain packages you have the time and interest to maintain, not just for the sake of having "way more very soon". To be honest, it's disappointing how this whole story turned into a personal war at the expense of the legitimacy of the requests. Submitting orphan requests for /poor/ reasons like "This person shouldn't maintain this package" without any additional details [5] [6] is not what orphan requests are for and are a waste of time for moderators that treat them. I'd like _both you and xiota_ to behave correctly by dropping this personal war behind and by submitting legitimately motivated requests. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=vte-git#n137 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=vte-git#n138 [3] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... [4] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Merge [5] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... [6] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
participants (2)
-
Pellegrino Prevete
-
Robin Candau