Hi, I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio <capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi,
I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio <capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command. I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list. You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users). This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views. Regards, Xyne
I wrote an comment there. You be useful to have a space to put that kind of message on top in AUR website, don't you think? I will also put a post_install message as you suggested. 2010/12/20 Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca>:
Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi,
I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio <capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
Regards, Xyne
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 20:43 -0200, Bernardo Barros wrote:
I wrote an comment there. You be useful to have a space to put that kind of message on top in AUR website, don't you think? I will also put a post_install message as you suggested.
Top-posting ftw? A pre_install message would be good for this sort of thing. But then again that would just encourage the current behaviour (where people assume that the 'AUR' is just simply a backend to the various helpers). In this situation, the best thing would be a post_install message, of course
On 21 December 2010 06:30, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
I used to warn and advise against uploading any kind of buildscript for ardour3. I believe I was wrong. I believe the biggest headache a PKGBUILD solves is dependencies. So +1 this stays with post-install messages.
* Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> [20.12.2010 23:31]:
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
Regards, Xyne
I'm the original author of the PKGBUILD and I put it to the AUR so people who are interested can easily build it. Building the package worked quite well back then, but of course this can change a lot when it's under heavy development. Removing it would be total nonsense in my opinion, because one day ardour3 will become stable and then some people might want this package again. So why not keep it. Xyne is right in my opinion, the post_install message is a good idea. I didn't use that because I thought that those who build and use it are aware of the very early state of the development. I gave away the maintainance, because I didn't have enough time for it and right now I have to have a rock solid ardour, so I use ardour2 with jack1.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Xyne wrote:
Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi,
I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio <capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
Regards, Xyne
This was kind of my take on it. Upstream is still alive, and the package has a fair number of votes. It's heavily in development, but this seems like the kind of thing that the AUR should be supporting. +1 for leaving it. d
On 21/12/10 08:30, Xyne wrote:
Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi,
I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis<paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros<bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio<capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason. [*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P Allan
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet. The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
On 2010-12-21 12:14 +0800 (51:2) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet.
The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
If a simple message is able to address the concerns expressed by the upstream developer and encourage users to contribute to the project then we should include it. It shows respect and costs nothing.
On 21/12/10 15:53, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-21 12:14 +0800 (51:2) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet.
The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
If a simple message is able to address the concerns expressed by the upstream developer and encourage users to contribute to the project then we should include it. It shows respect and costs nothing.
How about a comment in the PKGBUILD then? Everybody reads the PKGBUILD before blindly running makepkg, right... Too many people ignore post_install/upgrade messages as it is because of all the "useless" information in them. I think there usage should be limited to absolutely critical information. Allan
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:08:03 +1000 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 21/12/10 15:53, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-21 12:14 +0800 (51:2) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet.
The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
If a simple message is able to address the concerns expressed by the upstream developer and encourage users to contribute to the project then we should include it. It shows respect and costs nothing.
How about a comment in the PKGBUILD then? Everybody reads the PKGBUILD before blindly running makepkg, right...
Too many people ignore post_install/upgrade messages as it is because of all the "useless" information in them. I think there usage should be limited to absolutely critical information.
Allan
many people ignore those messages? that's silly. the solution for preventing users ignoring reading warnings is not removing the warnings. anyway, if you make it a warning - even if they ignore it - they will *also* see it when they read the pkgbuild source. PS: didn't you just say "I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid" ? Dieter
On 21/12/10 18:52, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:08:03 +1000 Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 21/12/10 15:53, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-21 12:14 +0800 (51:2) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet.
The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
If a simple message is able to address the concerns expressed by the upstream developer and encourage users to contribute to the project then we should include it. It shows respect and costs nothing.
How about a comment in the PKGBUILD then? Everybody reads the PKGBUILD before blindly running makepkg, right...
Too many people ignore post_install/upgrade messages as it is because of all the "useless" information in them. I think there usage should be limited to absolutely critical information.
Allan
many people ignore those messages? that's silly. the solution for preventing users ignoring reading warnings is not removing the warnings. anyway, if you make it a warning - even if they ignore it - they will *also* see it when they read the pkgbuild source.
No. The solution is not to warn the user for unimportant things so they do not become desensitised to output from pacman.
PS: didn't you just say "I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid" ?
I did follow that with an asterisk... Allan
Excerpts from Allan McRae's message of 2010-12-21 04:22:58 +0100:
On 21/12/10 08:30, Xyne wrote:
Bernardo Barros wrote:
Hi,
I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use yet. See message from the author below.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Davis<paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros<bernardobarros2@gmail.com> Cc: Fabio<capoeirista@arcor.de>, linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. it's a arch user script that builds from svn.
that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch build scripts ... not so much
I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do this. Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, but I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to the latest version with a single command.
I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the upstream mailing list.
You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users).
This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views.
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
IMHO the problem is that A3 is still far from a release, so SVN is used for heavy development at the moment while with lots of other project development is a lot slower and only bugfixes go there. Meaning: with a lot of software SVN is 'safe' to use while it currently isn't for A3. Paul doesn't want casual users to try it yet but on the other hand makes it appear as if the release is just around the corner to keep his revenue stream flowing. And it's not the first time and not the only way he tries to control ardour distribution. Not our problem I'd say.
Dear TUs, If you decide to leave the package in AUR, I've already added this to post_install and post_update: echo ">>> ----------------------------------------WARNING----------------------------------------" echo ">>> This is not an official ardour or arch package, as most of AUR users already know. " echo ">>> Please if you really want to try this svn snapshot, make sure you update it frequently" echo ">>> and that you are capable of providing useful debug information for the developers." echo ">>>" echo ">>> Please also read the following links:" echo ">>> http://ardour.org/debugging_ardour" echo ">>> http://ardour.org/how_to_report_a_bug" echo ">>>" echo ">>> From the main developer as of 2010/12: " echo ">>> we have not asked (and are not asking) for people not" echo ">>> comfortable with debuggers and other tracing tools to " echo ">>> be using ardour3 at this time." echo ">>>" echo ">>> The authors also recomend that Arch users DO NOT use this PKGBUILD" echo ">>> and instead make all the steps using svn and 'svn update'." echo ">>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear TUs,
If you decide to leave the package in AUR, I've already added this to post_install and post_update:
echo ">>> ----------------------------------------WARNING----------------------------------------" echo ">>> This is not an official ardour or arch package, as most of AUR users already know. " echo ">>> Please if you really want to try this svn snapshot, make sure you update it frequently" echo ">>> and that you are capable of providing useful debug information for the developers." echo ">>>" echo ">>> Please also read the following links:" echo ">>> http://ardour.org/debugging_ardour" echo ">>> http://ardour.org/how_to_report_a_bug" echo ">>>" echo ">>> From the main developer as of 2010/12: " echo ">>> we have not asked (and are not asking) for people not" echo ">>> comfortable with debuggers and other tracing tools to " echo ">>> be using ardour3 at this time." echo ">>>" echo ">>> The authors also recomend that Arch users DO NOT use this PKGBUILD" echo ">>> and instead make all the steps using svn and 'svn update'." echo ">>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Why do you need to put this in post_update as well ? Could you also try to reduce this to meaningful info ? Like "Please be advised that ardour3 is not ready for use yet". -- Cédric Girard
2010/12/21 Cédric Girard <girard.cedric@gmail.com>:
Why do you need to put this in post_update as well ?
Could you also try to reduce this to meaningful info ? Like "Please be advised that ardour3 is not ready for use yet".
I did like this because Paul Davis (the developer that aked to change it) said me he was confortable with this message as it is as long as the user actually read it. Pointing to those two links maybe made had a place in this decision? I can delete the post_update if you find it cleaner.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com>wrote:
2010/12/21 Cédric Girard <girard.cedric@gmail.com>:
Why do you need to put this in post_update as well ?
Could you also try to reduce this to meaningful info ? Like "Please be advised that ardour3 is not ready for use yet".
I did like this because Paul Davis (the developer that aked to change it) said me he was confortable with this message as it is as long as the user actually read it. Pointing to those two links maybe made had a place in this decision? I can delete the post_update if you find it cleaner.
I know why you did it, even though I don't see why AUR PKGBUILDs content should be dictated by upstream devs. Maybe you are right about the debugging info. But the paragraphs about "not an official ... package" and "do not use" just make the meaningful info more difficult to spot IMHO. About post_update, maybe a TU or a dev have an opinion on this... -- Cédric Girard
On 2010-12-21 15:55 +0100 (51:2) Cédric Girard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com>wrote:
2010/12/21 Cédric Girard <girard.cedric@gmail.com>:
Why do you need to put this in post_update as well ?
Could you also try to reduce this to meaningful info ? Like "Please be advised that ardour3 is not ready for use yet".
I did like this because Paul Davis (the developer that aked to change it) said me he was confortable with this message as it is as long as the user actually read it. Pointing to those two links maybe made had a place in this decision? I can delete the post_update if you find it cleaner.
I know why you did it, even though I don't see why AUR PKGBUILDs content should be dictated by upstream devs.
It's not being dictated by upstream devs. The dev has expressed concerns and we're trying to address them out of respect. He has been neither rude nor demanding from what I have seen, and a simple message is a completely reasonable solution. Really, the entire OSS community would fall apart if everyone adopted this apparent attitude of "I don't have to do shit for you, no matter how ridiculously easy it would be for me, so why should I? Now do more for me." It's parasitic consumption and it undermines the mutualism on which we thrive.
Maybe you are right about the debugging info. But the paragraphs about "not an official ... package" and "do not use" just make the meaningful info more difficult to spot IMHO.
About post_update, maybe a TU or a dev have an opinion on this... The post_update should only display this message one for users who are upgrading from a previous version that did not include the message. The first argument passed to the post_upgrade is the new package version so you should be able to do something like this (let's say that you added this message in
I would try to shorten the message (and use "cat"), e.g. cat <<'MSG' ==> WARNING: Ardour3 is in a very early stage of rapid development. The upstream developer requests that you only use this package if you are familiar with debugging tools and intend to contribute useful information upstream. Please read the following: http://ardour.org/debugging_ardour http://ardour.org/how_to_report_a_bug MSG If the formatting was mangled in transit, I usually indent everything to the same level as the first word after "==> WARNING:", but that's purely a stylistic choice. package version "x"): if [ "$1" == "x" ]; then <include message here> fi
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:33 +0100, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-21 15:55 +0100 (51:2) Cédric Girard wrote:
I know why you did it, even though I don't see why AUR PKGBUILDs content should be dictated by upstream devs.
It's not being dictated by upstream devs. The dev has expressed concerns and we're trying to address them out of respect. He has been neither rude nor demanding from what I have seen, and a simple message is a completely reasonable solution.
+1 on this point, been following the LAU thread. Paul has expressed his opinion and been very civil about it, we should do the same IMO, it does not cost much.
participants (10)
-
Allan McRae
-
Bernardo Barros
-
Cédric Girard
-
Dave Reisner
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Philipp Überbacher
-
Ray Rashif
-
Uli Armbruster
-
Xyne