hi,
wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504
abracos Antonio Lucas
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas antonioluccas@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504
abracos Antonio Lucas
I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.
I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]
On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas antonioluccas@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504
abracos Antonio Lucas
I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.
I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]
The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more consistent system.
In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed to adopt the correctly named package.
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:31:07 +0200 Xyne xyne@archlinux.ca wrote:
On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas antonioluccas@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504
abracos Antonio Lucas
I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.
I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]
The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more consistent system.
In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed to adopt the correctly named package.
I'm the maintainer of the wwt-svn package, the original name of the program was "Wiimms WBFS Tools", later renamed to "Wiimms ISO Tools". I didn't catch the rename fast enough and so Gordin created the wit-svn package.
On one hand I don't care either way which package remains, on the other hand I'll maintain my PKGBUILD anyway, since I neet those tools in a semi-professional way. (I "maintain" a Wii in a public place and the WBFS stuff gives us the possibility to restrict access to the Wii itself and the original media.) The build-system is homegrown and needs quite a bit of handholding to get a proper package. From a glance at the two PKGBUILDs it seems, mine is a bit more up to current standards, while Gordin's seems to "do" more, though I'm not clear to what purpose.
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Alexander Duscheleit jinks@archlinux.us wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:31:07 +0200 Xyne xyne@archlinux.ca wrote:
On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas antonioluccas@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504
abracos Antonio Lucas
I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.
I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]
The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more consistent system.
In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed to adopt the correctly named package.
I'm the maintainer of the wwt-svn package, the original name of the program was "Wiimms WBFS Tools", later renamed to "Wiimms ISO Tools". I didn't catch the rename fast enough and so Gordin created the wit-svn package.
On one hand I don't care either way which package remains, on the other hand I'll maintain my PKGBUILD anyway, since I neet those tools in a semi-professional way. (I "maintain" a Wii in a public place and the WBFS stuff gives us the possibility to restrict access to the Wii itself and the original media.) The build-system is homegrown and needs quite a bit of handholding to get a proper package. From a glance at the two PKGBUILDs it seems, mine is a bit more up to current standards, while Gordin's seems to "do" more, though I'm not clear to what purpose.
Thanks for jumping in. I've disowned wit-svn. Please adopt it and upload your package under the new name.
When you're done, reply here and I'll delete wwt-svn.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:37:50 +0300 Evangelos Foutras foutrelis@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Thanks for jumping in. I've disowned wit-svn. Please adopt it and upload your package under the new name.
When you're done, reply here and I'll delete wwt-svn.
Finally, this is done! Sorry for the long delay, I've been ill for quite a while and had to catch up on work stuff like crazy.
The new wit-svn PKGBUILD now incorporates features from both former packages.
One question (purely for vanity reasons): Is it possible, to transfer the votes from wwt-svn to wit-svn before removing the former?
In any case, wwt-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239) can now be removed.
Greetings, jinks
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Alexander Duscheleit jinks@archlinux.us wrote:
Finally, this is done! Sorry for the long delay, I've been ill for quite a while and had to catch up on work stuff like crazy.
The new wit-svn PKGBUILD now incorporates features from both former packages.
One question (purely for vanity reasons): Is it possible, to transfer the votes from wwt-svn to wit-svn before removing the former?
In any case, wwt-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239) can now be removed.
Greetings, jinks
Glad you're feeling better now.
I removed wwt-svn. Unfortunately, it's not possible to transfer its votes to wit-svn.
Cheers.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org