Hi,
acpi_call-git's PKGBUILD [1] is currently broken, as it uses a patch that is not necessary for long time now. This was commented, but the maintainer doesn't fixed nor replied about. Please disown it, so I can fix it.
Thanks
acpi_call-git's PKGBUILD [1] is currently broken, as it uses a patch that is not necessary for long time now. This was commented, but the maintainer doesn't fixed nor replied about. Please disown it, so I can fix it.
It looks like this guy owns lots of packages that are not fixed, and people leave comments with how to fix them.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aircrack-ng-cuda-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/airdrop-ng-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fern-wifi-cracker-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hanstunnel/
Currently according to the AUR rules, one have to contact the owner and then send a request to aur-general. Would it be reasonable to autodisown packages that are marked as out-of-date and never fixed after say 2 months?
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Nowaker enwukaer@gmail.com wrote:
acpi_call-git's PKGBUILD [1] is currently broken, as it uses a patch that is not necessary for long time now. This was commented, but the maintainer doesn't fixed nor replied about. Please disown it, so I can fix it.
It looks like this guy owns lots of packages that are not fixed, and people leave comments with how to fix them.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aircrack-ng-cuda-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/airdrop-ng-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fern-wifi-cracker-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hanstunnel/
Currently according to the AUR rules, one have to contact the owner and then send a request to aur-general. Would it be reasonable to autodisown packages that are marked as out-of-date and never fixed after say 2 months?
Our bureaucracy seems to fail us in this case. Did you at least CC the maintainer? Did anyone (looking into OP's general direction...)? Okay, here we go.
##### attention fnord0 #####
Dear package maintainer,
it looks like your current status would imply you'd be the person to fix and tweak some of your packages. We'd be glad if you could look after them. Please reply to me personally or subscribe to the aur-general mailing list so we can sort things out. Sorry for the communication leftovers above, that's from the aur-general mailing list where people started discussing your packages 2013-09-28.
cheers! mar77i
please accept my sincerest apologies. I have updated the acpi_call-git package to fully working.
you are correct, I fell behind in my duties of keeping the packages that I maintain up-to-date. there are several reasons why, but the most relevant being that my primary arch-linux development laptop died a while back, and I was without an archlinux system for several months. I am now "back from the dead" (so to speak), and intend to get each and every package I maintain 'up-to-snuff' so that I can be a better AUR community package maintener. expect each of my packages to get some much needed "love".
please contact me with any issues/questions and I will gladly respond. thank you for bringing this issue to my attention,
fnord0@riseup.net
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Nowaker enwukaer@gmail.com wrote:
acpi_call-git's PKGBUILD [1] is currently broken, as it uses a patch that is not necessary for long time now. This was commented, but the maintainer doesn't fixed nor replied about. Please disown it, so I can fix it.
It looks like this guy owns lots of packages that are not fixed, and people leave comments with how to fix them.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aircrack-ng-cuda-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/airdrop-ng-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fern-wifi-cracker-svn/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hanstunnel/
Currently according to the AUR rules, one have to contact the owner and then send a request to aur-general. Would it be reasonable to autodisown packages that are marked as out-of-date and never fixed after say 2 months?
Our bureaucracy seems to fail us in this case. Did you at least CC the maintainer? Did anyone (looking into OP's general direction...)? Okay, here we go.
##### attention fnord0 #####
Dear package maintainer,
it looks like your current status would imply you'd be the person to fix and tweak some of your packages. We'd be glad if you could look after them. Please reply to me personally or subscribe to the aur-general mailing list so we can sort things out. Sorry for the communication leftovers above, that's from the aur-general mailing list where people started discussing your packages 2013-09-28.
cheers! mar77i
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org