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 :

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 Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros Cc: Fabio , linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros 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 21 December 2010 06:30, Xyne 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.

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 Date: 2010/12/20 Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 To: Bernardo Barros Cc: Fabio , linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros 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 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 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 21/12/10 18:52, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:08:03 +1000 Allan McRae 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

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 ">>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

2010/12/21 Cédric Girard :

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 2010-12-21 15:55 +0100 (51:2) Cédric Girard wrote:

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:

...

2010/12/21 Cédric Girard :

...

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