[aur-general] Orphans in community part II
Hi fellas, there is a new list of packages which are orphans, many of them, could be dependences of other packages which are adopted, if this is the case, please TUs adopt all dependencies of their packages. The following list are the packages which i am talking about: dvd-slideshow 0.8.0-4 eclipse-mylyn 3.0.0-1 gambas 1.0.19-1 glib2-docs 2.18.0-1 gtk2+extra 2.1.1-1 kdvdauthorwizard 1.4.6-4 ktechlab 0.3.6-1 openlh-server 0.1-4 opensips 1.4.2-4 qmc2 0.2.b4-1 qstardict 0.12.9-2 sarg 2.2.3.1-1 scilab 4.1.2-4 sofia-sip 1.12.7-1 telepathy-glib 0.7.10-1 wqy-bitmapfont 0.9.9-4 wqy-zenhei 0.6.26-1 xgl 0.0.1.20080407-1 Many were maintained by DaNiMoTh, since his resign we adopt many of his packages, but the rest still orphans, please new TUs adopt some of them if you consider able to maintain it, else I want to propose an date for move these packages to unsupported. 21/10/2008 (two weeks) sounds good to me. Opinions are open. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User (TU) http://www.angvp.com
Daenyth Blank ha scritto:
I propose no packages are moved unless they are out-of-date. There is no point removing perfectly good binaries from the repos.
Allan
I second this.
This have sense. so let's wait to the day in which these packages are out of date to move to unsupported... Now, this is not the subject but i will point it because Allan mentioned 'out-of-date'. The other question that I have is: what about community packages out-of-date because the maintainer seems to be dead? and these aren't inactive (not officially). This is quite complicate, some maintainers let grab their packages, and some don't, and the case is worst, when we are talking about any Dev. E-mailing without any reply (btw I consider a lack of respect, i prefer a reply later or any contact try to reply) is the most common case, and maybe nobody dare to point people, I won't point with my finger anyone (so don't worry), I am just trying to do a call for reflection, to improve our work. Nothing more, and I apologize if exist some inconvenient with this e-mail. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User (TU) http://www.angvp.com
DaNiMoTh ha scritto:
Sorry for my prev (blank) email.
Owned by a mac? :P
angvp, I think that all TUs will agree with you; but you just consider that this is an hobby, so the upgrade sometimes will come with delay.
Come delay should be weeks, not months... imho. Plus i know that this is a work "volunteer" (non a hobby), so what is the complaining grabbing packages that one person who maintain time ago can not do it (maybe because he don't have the time or something), even packages that i maintain are available when i won't be able to update and any TU desires to adopt it, this is a just a *reflexion* as I said.
Anyone of new TUs that want to adopy my ex-packages?
I adopted some of you, and others TU too, sergej in fact adopt some of them, this kind of e-mails works for alert some TUs to adopt packages, and the community people who can propose themselves to be TUs and maintain them. Again, thanks for your contributions! and for your offer to help maintaining your "ex"-packages ;) Cheers. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User (TU) http://www.angvp.com
Ángel Velásquez wrote:
Hi fellas, there is a new list of packages which are orphans, many of them, could be dependences of other packages which are adopted, if this is the case, please TUs adopt all dependencies of their packages.
The following list are the packages which i am talking about:
dvd-slideshow 0.8.0-4 eclipse-mylyn 3.0.0-1 gambas 1.0.19-1 glib2-docs 2.18.0-1 gtk2+extra 2.1.1-1 kdvdauthorwizard 1.4.6-4 ktechlab 0.3.6-1 openlh-server 0.1-4 opensips 1.4.2-4 qmc2 0.2.b4-1 qstardict 0.12.9-2 sarg 2.2.3.1-1 scilab 4.1.2-4 sofia-sip 1.12.7-1 telepathy-glib 0.7.10-1 wqy-bitmapfont 0.9.9-4 wqy-zenhei 0.6.26-1 xgl 0.0.1.20080407-1
Many were maintained by DaNiMoTh, since his resign we adopt many of his packages, but the rest still orphans, please new TUs adopt some of them if you consider able to maintain it, else I want to propose an date for move these packages to unsupported. 21/10/2008 (two weeks) sounds good to me.
Opinions are open.
I propose no packages are moved unless they are out-of-date. There is no point removing perfectly good binaries from the repos. Allan
2008/10/7 Ángel Velásquez
Hi fellas, there is a new list of packages which are orphans, many of them, could be dependences of other packages which are adopted, if this is the case, please TUs adopt all dependencies of their packages.
The following list are the packages which i am talking about:
dvd-slideshow 0.8.0-4 gtk2+extra 2.1.1-1 kdvdauthorwizard 1.4.6-4 qmc2 0.2.b4-1 scilab 4.1.2-4 wqy-bitmapfont 0.9.9-4 wqy-zenhei 0.6.26-1
These are used by many people.. I hope that some TU can adopt it.New TUs, there is a call for you :) Remember that I'm here if who adopt these packages will have some trouble on mantaing it.
I propose no packages are moved unless they are out-of-date. There is no point removing perfectly good binaries from the repos.
Allan
I second this.
2008/10/7 Allan McRae
I propose no packages are moved unless they are out-of-date. There is no point removing perfectly good binaries from the repos. +1 for me too
-- Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino Arch Linux Trusted User Linux User: #430842
2008/10/7, Ángel Velásquez
Daenyth Blank ha scritto:
I propose no packages are moved unless they are out-of-date. There is no point removing perfectly good binaries from the repos.
Allan
I second this.
This have sense. so let's wait to the day in which these packages are out of date to move to unsupported...
Now, this is not the subject but i will point it because Allan mentioned 'out-of-date'. The other question that I have is: what about community packages out-of-date because the maintainer seems to be dead? and these aren't inactive (not officially).
This is quite complicate, some maintainers let grab their packages, and some don't, and the case is worst, when we are talking about any Dev. E-mailing without any reply (btw I consider a lack of respect, i prefer a reply later or any contact try to reply) is the most common case, and maybe nobody dare to point people, I won't point with my finger anyone (so don't worry), I am just trying to do a call for reflection, to improve our work.
Nothing more, and I apologize if exist some inconvenient with this e-mail.
-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User (TU) http://www.angvp.com
Sorry for my prev (blank) email. angvp, I think that all TUs will agree with you; but you just consider that this is an hobby, so the upgrade sometimes will come with delay. Anyone of new TUs that want to adopy my ex-packages?
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Daenyth Blank
-
DaNiMoTh
-
Ángel Velásquez