On 3/1/23 10:30, Oskar Roesler wrote:
The TU's aren't judges in criminal court. It's totally ok and beneficial if they apply some pragmatism and common sense. Hell, even real court judges are allowed to vary in their decisionmaking. No, you're not discriminated because they stopped your reaction. I hope you can understand and accept that.
I understand. But I just don't get why I was banned. TU said this will be helpful to identify not complying packages. I just did that. It wasn't an automated script or something. And this is just requests, it is for TUs to make a decision. Unfortunately there is no "check" request type for simply bring attention, so I filled deletes. Also I don't see any mentions about how much requests user can make. If you guys have problems with it, please share the limits publicly, e.g. on the wiki page. P.S. Regarding common sense. I will be glad if someone will explain how my package (libinput-light), which was created to drop libwacom dependency (How much users have wacom tablets? I think even 1% of the userbase will be generous overestimation.), considered harmful and deleted, but packages like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-slim stripped down to hell and literally stating "Zero compatibility" in the description are still alive for years? TU's aren't judges, as you said, but I definitely want some justice here.
Hey, On 01/03/2023 12:16, irecca.kun@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/23 10:30, Oskar Roesler wrote:
The TU's aren't judges in criminal court. It's totally ok and beneficial if they apply some pragmatism and common sense. Hell, even real court judges are allowed to vary in their decisionmaking. No, you're not discriminated because they stopped your reaction. I hope you can understand and accept that.
I understand. But I just don't get why I was banned. TU said this will be helpful to identify not complying packages. I just did that. It wasn't an automated script or something. And this is just requests, it is for TUs to make a decision. Unfortunately there is no "check" request type for simply bring attention, so I filled deletes.
You filled ~ 50 requests in X minutes with just "Not allowed by AUR submission guidelines". Without further detail about what is wrong with the package causing the TU's to have to figure out what this request is about.
Also I don't see any mentions about how much requests user can make. If you guys have problems with it, please share the limits publicly, e.g. on the wiki page.
You mention common sense below, not creating ~ 50 requests with the same message is common sense. If you want to clean up more from the AUR that is fine but please coordinate it carefully with a TU so they know about it upfront.
P.S. Regarding common sense. I will be glad if someone will explain how my package (libinput-light), which was created to drop libwacom dependency (How much users have wacom tablets? I think even 1% of the userbase will be generous overestimation.), considered harmful and deleted, but packages like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-slim stripped down to hell and literally stating "Zero compatibility" in the description are still alive for years?
TU's aren't judges, as you said, but I definitely want some justice here.
The AUR has 82736 packages, and packages are checked by volunteers and by hand. Do you expect them to go through all uploaded packages night and day? It turns out you were unlucky and someone noticed, don't take this personal and please don't start filling requests because you feel you were wronged. Greetings, Jelle
On 3/1/23 17:24, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
You filled ~ 50 requests in X minutes with just "Not allowed by AUR submission guidelines". Without further detail about what is wrong with the package causing the TU's to have to figure out what this request is about.
About 20 of that packages were my own. It was my decision as a maintainer to delete them. But for the rest, yeah, there is some oversight. I should've come up with more detailed message. Certainly will not do it again though. Seems like the report system is not the best way to handle mass cleanup anyway. But the question is: will I be unbanned?
You mention common sense below, not creating ~ 50 requests with the same message is common sense. If you want to clean up more from the AUR that is fine but please coordinate it carefully with a TU so they know about it upfront.
And I did asked prior doing it actually. There is some misunderstanding happend, where by "a lot of packages need to be reported" I meant really a lot. I actually watch and explore AUR packages, that's why I was aware about their existance and able to report quickly.
The AUR has 82736 packages, and packages are checked by volunteers and by hand. Do you expect them to go through all uploaded packages night and day?
That is exacly why I tried to help. If report system is not appropriate for this task, I can make a list of packages to be checked and send it somewhere.
On 3/1/23 10:30, Oskar Roesler wrote:
The TU's aren't judges in criminal court. It's totally ok and beneficial if they apply some pragmatism and common sense. Hell, even real court judges are allowed to vary in their decisionmaking. No, you're not discriminated because they stopped your reaction. I hope you can understand and accept that.
I understand. But I just don't get why I was banned. TU said this will be helpful to identify not complying packages. I just did that. It wasn't an automated script or something. And this is just requests, it is for TUs to make a decision. Unfortunately there is no "check" request type for simply bring attention, so I filled deletes.
Also I don't see any mentions about how much requests user can make. If you guys have problems with it, please share the limits publicly, e.g. on the wiki page. Identifying not complying packages is surely helpful /if done properly/, but certainly not in that form. Once again, while we appreciate your will to help, no one asked or expected you going in such a hunt and reporting that much packages at once with the same predefined and vague message (" Not allowed by AUR submission guidelines"). Reporting needs a bit of interpretation and judgement regarding the rules (and the
Le 01/03/2023 à 12:16, irecca.kun@gmail.com a écrit : potential exceptions to them) before claiming a package goes against them or not. Reporting massively with a vague predefined message that way isn't helpful, it's actually counter-productive.
P.S. Regarding common sense. I will be glad if someone will explain how my package (libinput-light), which was created to drop libwacom dependency (How much users have wacom tablets? I think even 1% of the userbase will be generous overestimation.), considered harmful and deleted, but packages like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/linux-slim stripped down to hell and literally stating "Zero compatibility" in the description are still alive for years?
First of all, as I already said to you, there's currently /way/ more than 80 000 packages in the AUR for 61 volunteers TUs to moderate them all. Please, understand that we cannot have eyes everywhere at once nor be aware of every AUR packages that exists. And secondly, I don't think reporting a package for the sole reason that you think that "if mine has been deleted then this one should too" is a sane and appreciated approach.
TU's aren't judges, as you said, but I definitely want some justice here.
Don't worry, regardless, the package you linked will be examined and "justice" will be made if needed :) -- Regards, Robin Candau
On 3/1/23 12:42, Robin Candau wrote:
Identifying not complying packages is surely helpful /if done properly/, but certainly not in that form. Once again, while we appreciate your will to help, no one asked or expected you going in such a hunt and reporting that much packages at once with the same predefined and vague message (" Not allowed by AUR submission guidelines"). Reporting needs a bit of interpretation and judgement regarding the rules (and the potential exceptions to them) before claiming a package goes against them or not. Reporting massively with a vague predefined message that way isn't helpful, it's actually counter-productive. First of all, as I already said to you, there's currently /way/ more than 80 000 packages in the AUR for 61 volunteers TUs to moderate them all. Please, understand that we cannot have eyes everywhere at once nor be aware of every AUR packages that exists.
I got it. Unfortunately it was too late. I was not aware of how report system works and that it sends direct emails. By deleting my package you've opened my eyes on how of a mess AUR state actually is. Cleanup is not easy, but doable I think.
And secondly, I don't think reporting a package for the sole reason that you think that "if mine has been deleted then this one should too" is a sane and appreciated approach.
Maybe guidelines should be expanded then. About what exactly considered a duplicate. How much change there should be to consider it a standalone package. (Significant patchsets or forks essentially? Simply changing the build options is not enough?) It definitely will make filtering easier.
Don't worry, regardless, the package you linked will be examined and "justice" will be made if needed :)
That was just an example. I don't mind about one particular package.
Thanks for adopting a more comprehensive and helping point of view. Once again, it was more about the form than the initial goal. Help is always appreciated :) Your AUR account is un-suspended. -- Regards, Robin Candau
On 3/1/23 13:55, Robin Candau wrote:
Thanks for adopting a more comprehensive and helping point of view. Once again, it was more about the form than the initial goal. Help is always appreciated :)
Honestly, I was angry of being kicked twice in a row (deletion + suspension). But it does not matter after all.
Your AUR account is un-suspended.
Thank you. At the end: I am personally not against such (slightly modified) packages. Some of them are actually quite popular. In fact, not against any packages if there is no harm or obvious poor quality. More = better. But rules are rules. It is like, you comply with the laws even if you dislike them.
participants (3)
-
irecca.kun＠gmail.com
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Robin Candau