User "Scimmia" is misusing "Report out-of-date" button for purposely spamming excessive off-topic messages
The field is designed for notifying the maintainer of the package when a new release is available, not for reporting any other sort of problems (for which there are other means of reporting). But aside of misusing the purpose of the field, there is also a clear intention for spamming as could be seen : https://imgur.com/a/54O3TTR
On 11/13/24 2:51 PM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
The field is designed for notifying the maintainer of the package when a new release is available, not for reporting any other sort of problems (for which there are other means of reporting).
But aside of misusing the purpose of the field, there is also a clear intention for spamming as could be seen : https://imgur.com/a/54O3TTR <https://imgur.com/a/54O3TTR>
Hi, Thanks for reaching out. Despite the package indeed missing a make dependency (for which I just wrote a proper comment [1]), I agree the "flag out of date" field has been used wrongly and abusively here. The concerned user will be warned accordingly. However, I'd like to also take this mail as an occasion to point out that the latest commit for this package [2] is inappropriate. If you have an issue with another user (or anything else), please report it properly instead of adding such unexpected & superfluous/irrelevant step to the PKGBUILD. Please revert that commit. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/goodvibes-git#comment-998356 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=goodvibes-git&id=d9af2592cb42534c81ee18913b4ce8c8970a54da -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
I'll clean it up while updating the pkg 👍 the reason why i've chosen the comment for posting a link - as there is no other mechanism of replying to a user who sent a wrong report, and initial reports from a first user were not AS excessive for reporting them as malicious intent. and also i'll repeat my question which i posted previously in a bbs thread which got closed due to necro-posting: is there some plan of making the field description more clear and validating it to be a valid url? i could submit patch, but i think it would be a waste of time doing so before agreeing on that
Hi,
Thanks for reaching out. Despite the package indeed missing a make dependency (for which I just wrote a proper comment [1]), I agree the "flag out of date" field has been used wrongly and abusively here. The concerned user will be warned accordingly.
However, I'd like to also take this mail as an occasion to point out that the latest commit for this package [2] is inappropriate. If you have an issue with another user (or anything else), please report it properly instead of adding such unexpected & superfluous/irrelevant step to the PKGBUILD. Please revert that commit.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/goodvibes-git#comment-998356 [2]
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=goodvibes-git&id=d9af2592cb42534c81ee18913b4ce8c8970a54da -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
On 11/13/24 8:10 AM, Robin Candau wrote:
On 11/13/24 2:51 PM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
The field is designed for notifying the maintainer of the package when a new release is available, not for reporting any other sort of problems (for which there are other means of reporting).
As pointed out in both the thread you referenced and on the flagging page itself, this is completely untrue for VCS packages. External changes require changes to the PKGBUILD, which is the definition of out of date for VCS packages.
and on the flagging page itself,
here are the contents of the flagging page itself:
Flag Package Out-Of-Date: <name>
Use this form to flag the package base <name> and the following packages out-of-date: <name> Please do not use this form to report bugs. Use the package comments instead. Enter details on why the package is out-of-date below, preferably including links to the release announcement or the new release tarball. ___________ i don't see anything here suggesting that there are some rule exemptions for a VCS package. if you have another reliable source, feel free to quote&link that. also i wonder what sort of personal obsession one would have to keep refreshing a page for posting the same message over and over? this not looks any different than stalking On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM Doug Newgard <dnewgard@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/13/24 8:10 AM, Robin Candau wrote:
On 11/13/24 2:51 PM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
The field is designed for notifying the maintainer of the package when a new release is available, not for reporting any other sort of problems (for which there are other means of reporting).
As pointed out in both the thread you referenced and on the flagging page itself, this is completely untrue for VCS packages. External changes require changes to the PKGBUILD, which is the definition of out of date for VCS packages.
On 11/13/24 8:32 AM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
and on the flagging page itself, <snip> i don't see anything here suggesting that there are some rule exemptions for a VCS package. if you have another reliable source, feel free to quote&link that.
The full text when flagging a VCS package: Use this form to flag the package base <pkgbase>-git and the following packages out-of-date: <pkgname>-git This seems to be a VCS package. Please do not flag it out-of-date if the package version in the AUR does not match the most recent commit. Flagging this package should only be done if the sources moved or changes in the PKGBUILD are required because of recent upstream changes. Please do not use this form to report bugs. Use the package comments instead. Enter details on why the package is out-of-date below, preferably including links to the release announcement or the new release tarball. Your PKGBUILD was fine, then changes were made upstream and it is no longer fine, hence it's out of date.
so in that case - if you're sure that it's not a bug (or result of that lib being previously provided as a dependency of dependency of that package), but a result of upstream change - new release / commit which introducing that change On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:41 PM Doug Newgard <dnewgard@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/13/24 8:32 AM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
and on the flagging page itself, <snip> i don't see anything here suggesting that there are some rule exemptions for a VCS package. if you have another reliable source, feel free to quote&link that.
The full text when flagging a VCS package:
Use this form to flag the package base <pkgbase>-git and the following packages out-of-date:
<pkgname>-git This seems to be a VCS package. Please do not flag it out-of-date if the package version in the AUR does not match the most recent commit. Flagging this package should only be done if the sources moved or changes in the PKGBUILD are required because of recent upstream changes.
Please do not use this form to report bugs. Use the package comments instead. Enter details on why the package is out-of-date below, preferably including links to the release announcement or the new release tarball.
Your PKGBUILD was fine, then changes were made upstream and it is no longer fine, hence it's out of date.
...new release / commit which introducing that change should be provided in the form On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:53 PM Actionless Loveless < actionless.loveless@gmail.com> wrote:
so in that case - if you're sure that it's not a bug (or result of that lib being previously provided as a dependency of dependency of that package), but a result of upstream change - new release / commit which introducing that change
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:41 PM Doug Newgard <dnewgard@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/13/24 8:32 AM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
and on the flagging page itself, <snip> i don't see anything here suggesting that there are some rule exemptions for a VCS package. if you have another reliable source, feel free to quote&link that.
The full text when flagging a VCS package:
Use this form to flag the package base <pkgbase>-git and the following packages out-of-date:
<pkgname>-git This seems to be a VCS package. Please do not flag it out-of-date if the package version in the AUR does not match the most recent commit. Flagging this package should only be done if the sources moved or changes in the PKGBUILD are required because of recent upstream changes.
Please do not use this form to report bugs. Use the package comments instead. Enter details on why the package is out-of-date below, preferably including links to the release announcement or the new release tarball.
Your PKGBUILD was fine, then changes were made upstream and it is no longer fine, hence it's out of date.
On 11/13/24 3:41 PM, Doug Newgard wrote:
On 11/13/24 8:32 AM, Actionless Loveless wrote:
> and on the flagging page itself, <snip> i don't see anything here suggesting that there are some rule exemptions for a VCS package. if you have another reliable source, feel free to quote&link that.
The full text when flagging a VCS package:
Use this form to flag the package base <pkgbase>-git and the following packages out-of-date:
<pkgname>-git This seems to be a VCS package. Please do not flag it out-of-date if the package version in the AUR does not match the most recent commit. Flagging this package should only be done if the sources moved or changes in the PKGBUILD are required because of recent upstream changes.
Please do not use this form to report bugs. Use the package comments instead. Enter details on why the package is out-of-date below, preferably including links to the release announcement or the new release tarball.
Your PKGBUILD was fine, then changes were made upstream and it is no longer fine, hence it's out of date.
Whether "upstream" refers to Arch or the upstream of the sources of the package is subject to debate if you ask me. For what it's worth, when it comes to official packages, we would consider an out of date flag reporting a missing dependency a wrong use of it. Regardless of the fact that it might be different for VCS packages, this is not a reason to use the flag out of date button abusively. In that specific case, I would argue a simple comment like the one I did [1] would have done the trick (instead of purposely create annoyances and burden to people, including the moderation). If a maintainer of a package isn't responsive to such a comment, there are other proper means to act [2]. In any case, since the different actors of this issue have now been contacted regarding their respective fault, let's please drop the subject here :) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/goodvibes-git#comment-998356 [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Orphan -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
participants (3)
-
Actionless Loveless
-
Doug Newgard
-
Robin Candau