Problems with AUR packager Xiota and motivewave
The variable they recommended was build_id but that didn't create a clean makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO Here are some of the comments, it's like https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932313 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave and created motivewave-latest-bin Then I got re-uploaded, and within hours he re-deleted me again. He also blocked me from their Git. Then he moved again to AUR motivewave to team up and the comments started again. I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent code reviewer. Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help. This is in the git and shows how their suggestions actually broke the package. I created my custom variable but the nit picking has not continued. Calling a person non competent, rude, rude, rude. Especially when today the issue has been resolved. Here is how the package broke because code review. commit 1bceb28d1875deb4a303e6f13ee51e1ea86c0011 Author: Xavier Baez <xavierbaez@gmail.com> Date: Sun Sep 3 09:12:02 2023 -0700 changes suggested by muflone When .SRCINFO is automatically generated with makepkg the following changes happen in SRCINFO - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb diff --git a/.SRCINFO b/.SRCINFO index e82622d..1dd9db6 100644 --- a/.SRCINFO +++ b/.SRCINFO @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave pkgdesc = Advanced trading and charting application. pkgver = 6.7.10 - pkgrel = 3 + pkgrel = 4 url = https://www.motivewave.com arch = x86_64 license = custom @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave depends = xorg-xrandr provides = motivewave conflicts = motivewave-latest-bin - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb sha512sums = c97e3bb78236d6ef1ae8581e29b128e6ee512f8241617dbcab5989f3068bfa6bbe9b9c091bb09b238ea891f59e6c12ef13ceee079610f3fc95722c58c4769bb9 -- Regards Xavier
Hello, Firstly please do not make multiple threads for the same problem (or similar) it makes it harder for people to reply :) Again I can't particularly help but I still want to try to give some advice.
Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave and created motivewave-latest-bin
Chaotic AUR is an unofficial project, I believe it is managed by a bunch of university students. They have no authority over the AUR, nor do you need to answer to their demands. Just because Chaotic AUR is VERY popular (I think its the most popular unofficial repository due to the convenience), doesn't mean they matter or your say means any less than theirs.
I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent code reviewer. Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help.
You do not need to give up your life to contribute to AUR! As for the rules this is all available by your best friend when it comes to Arch Linux, the ArchWiki :P https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Requests If a package is high use, it is a good idea to give others co-maintainer so they can also contribute, but the important thing is communication. Now to cover my own arse now, I will point out the following: Muflone, one of the users you were arguing with is a staff member: https://archlinux.org/people/trusted-users/#muflone You have ignored their authority, and continued doing what they told you not to, that is why you are in trouble. According to what Muflone has said, you have breached the Code of Conduct. Advice: - Calm down about the situation and think rationally - Try to contact Muflone directly, their contact details can be found here: https://archlinux.org/people/trusted-users/#muflone Talk it out with Muflone and try to explain your point, and apologise of course for breaking the rules. - Re-read the code of conduct https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/code-of-conduct/ For any staff member who wants to accuse me of "playing mod", I am simply trying to be supportive. I can relate to this situation a ton, Xavier seems to have been slammed and I am sure nobody wants to be in that situation either. Also Xavier it appears you have used the comment section of the package as a running commentary, remember people get emailed every message, it is spam and it is incredibly annoying, just as a heads up :) This was pointed out to you: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave?O=20#comment-932111 And again: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave?O=10#comment-932151 (Muflone also pointed out that you do not need to rush this!) And again: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave?O=10#comment-932208 Imagine how many emails people following the package got in the period of 24 hours? Now you see why Muflone was telling you to stop. At this point if you are struggling feel free to ask for PKGBUILD review in aur-general mailing list, people will give you heads up and advice on improving the package, sorta like peer reviewing codebases. In conclusion, your issue is that you didn't listen to Muflone. For future reference, #archlinux-aur is always willing to help support you with fixing packages, and you can message much more rapid there. I wish you luck, best thing you can do is calmly try to explain your point of view to a moderator, instead of escalating the situation into a flame war, which is against the CoC. I would offer to help you with the PKGBUILD, but it seems like there is enough people slamming you with demands to change x, y and z, so best I not overwhelm you anymore :D PS, little tip on "how to not get in trouble with the staff", there is a list of trusted users (package maintainers): https://archlinux.org/people/trusted-users/ Simply search their username, or real name and you can find everything you need to know, along with how to contact them. Hope some of the advice helped in some way :) Take care, -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@icebound.dev
On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 23:16 +0100, Polarian wrote:
On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 12:20 -0700, Xavier Baez wrote:
I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working.
You do not need to give up your life to contribute to AUR! As for the rules this is all available by your best friend when it comes to Arch Linux, the ArchWiki :P
The keywords "trading software" and "church" are asking for a bad joke. You don't need to give your life, but your soul and the best friend isn't the ArchWiki, if you worship mammon 😈. Anyone who deals with trading software is selling their soul to the devil. When dealing with financial market analysis, don't be surprised by the smell of sulphur. Since the rules are supernatural, these rules go far beyond the rules mentioned by the ArchWiki. It's the poodle's core. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Unfortunately, the world is in big trouble because of financial market analysis and the gambling that accompanies it, and this is no joke at all.
Hi, On 05/09/2023 08:11, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 23:16 +0100, Polarian wrote:
On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 12:20 -0700, Xavier Baez wrote:
I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working.
You do not need to give up your life to contribute to AUR! As for the rules this is all available by your best friend when it comes to Arch Linux, the ArchWiki :P
The keywords "trading software" and "church" are asking for a bad joke.
You don't need to give your life, but your soul and the best friend isn't the ArchWiki, if you worship mammon 😈.
Anyone who deals with trading software is selling their soul to the devil. When dealing with financial market analysis, don't be surprised by the smell of sulphur. Since the rules are supernatural, these rules go far beyond the rules mentioned by the ArchWiki. It's the poodle's core.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Do better, this is not appropriate for the mailing list.
Unfortunately, the world is in big trouble because of financial market analysis and the gambling that accompanies it, and this is no joke at all.
This is an official warning, this is a basic violation of our CoC. Another violation will lead to moderation. Especially as the situation is sensitive, this is grossly inappropriate. Greetings, Jelle van der Waa
I don't see why you're that infuriated. xiota is indeed a bit combative with language but save for removing `conflicts` their suggestions all look good. Simply adding the "no same owner" removes the need for all that find chmod and chown stuff and just put the conflicting packing name under "conflicts", no need to make a new variable. You can't accuse a suggestion of being wrong if you don't implement it completely and you already did implement the dynamic URL in the pkgbuild right; why are you still suggesting that implementing it breaks the package? It already works albeit suboptimally because the no-same-owner stuff hasn't been implemented. You do not have to maintain this package. Nobody is forcing you to go back from church or a funeral. Your email seems like you're nitpicking their admittingly combative language, and I don't see any nitpicks in the line-by-line review. "Code review" has no negative connotations. On 2023/9/4 15:20, Xavier Baez wrote:
The variable they recommended was build_id but that didn't create a clean
makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO
Here are some of the comments, it's like
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932313 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340
Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave and created motivewave-latest-bin
Then I got re-uploaded, and within hours he re-deleted me again. He also blocked me from their Git.
Then he moved again to AUR motivewave to team up and the comments started again.
I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent code reviewer. Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help.
This is in the git and shows how their suggestions actually broke the package. I created my custom variable
but the nit picking has not continued.
Calling a person non competent, rude, rude, rude. Especially when today the issue has been resolved.
Here is how the package broke because code review.
commit 1bceb28d1875deb4a303e6f13ee51e1ea86c0011 Author: Xavier Baez <xavierbaez@gmail.com> Date: Sun Sep 3 09:12:02 2023 -0700
changes suggested by muflone
When .SRCINFO is automatically generated with makepkg
the following changes happen in SRCINFO - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb <https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb>
diff --git a/.SRCINFO b/.SRCINFO index e82622d..1dd9db6 100644 --- a/.SRCINFO +++ b/.SRCINFO @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave pkgdesc = Advanced trading and charting application. pkgver = 6.7.10 - pkgrel = 3 + pkgrel = 4 url = https://www.motivewave.com arch = x86_64 license = custom @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave depends = xorg-xrandr provides = motivewave conflicts = motivewave-latest-bin - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb::https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb <https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb> sha512sums = c97e3bb78236d6ef1ae8581e29b128e6ee512f8241617dbcab5989f3068bfa6bbe9b9c091bb09b238ea891f59e6c12ef13ceee079610f3fc95722c58c4769bb9
-- Regards
Xavier
I want to maintain the package. motivewave-latest-bin was supposed to be deleted yesterday. If that package is removed then motivewave wouldn’t have any conflicting packages. motivewave has motivewave-latest-bin listed as conflicts (which is accurate) And motivewave-latest-bin has motivewave listed as conflicts (which is accurate) So today Xiota accused me of incompetence, motivewave indeed conflicts with motivewave-latest-bin. Not following Xiota commands step by step does not make me incompetent. Xiota claims the motivewave-latest-bin package will be deleted, but only after I remove motivewave-latest-bin as a conflict. I wonder what’s the interest in me removing motivewave-latest-bin first, and why does he even cares about that. According to https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#conflicts These packages are in conflict. They have the exact same source. On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 3:29 PM Aaron Liu <aaronliu0130@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see why you're that infuriated. xiota is indeed a bit combative with language but save for removing `conflicts` their suggestions all look good. Simply adding the "no same owner" removes the need for all that find chmod and chown stuff and just put the conflicting packing name under "conflicts", no need to make a new variable.
You can't accuse a suggestion of being wrong if you don't implement it completely and you already did implement the dynamic URL in the pkgbuild right; why are you still suggesting that implementing it breaks the package? It already works albeit suboptimally because the no-same-owner stuff hasn't been implemented.
You do not have to maintain this package. Nobody is forcing you to go back from church or a funeral. Your email seems like you're nitpicking their admittingly combative language, and I don't see any nitpicks in the line-by-line review. "Code review" has no negative connotations. On 2023/9/4 15:20, Xavier Baez wrote:
The variable they recommended was build_id but that didn't create a clean
makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO
Here are some of the comments, it's like
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932313 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932245 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932340
Xiota also manages chaotic AUR, so he created an 'issue' where two packages wouldn't be able to exist, so he deleted motivewave and created motivewave-latest-bin
Then I got re-uploaded, and within hours he re-deleted me again. He also blocked me from their Git.
Then he moved again to AUR motivewave to team up and the comments started again.
I would like to know what the rules are, today at Labor Day 3 AM the change requests arrive again, yesterday I had to leave church to come home and do more changes Test the package, was working. I don't want to be forced to use variables or have a permanent code reviewer. Be called incompetent or imply I am dumb and need help.
This is in the git and shows how their suggestions actually broke the package. I created my custom variable
but the nit picking has not continued.
Calling a person non competent, rude, rude, rude. Especially when today the issue has been resolved.
Here is how the package broke because code review.
commit 1bceb28d1875deb4a303e6f13ee51e1ea86c0011 Author: Xavier Baez <xavierbaez@gmail.com> Date: Sun Sep 3 09:12:02 2023 -0700
changes suggested by muflone
When .SRCINFO is automatically generated with makepkg
the following changes happen in SRCINFO - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb
diff --git a/.SRCINFO b/.SRCINFO index e82622d..1dd9db6 100644 --- a/.SRCINFO +++ b/.SRCINFO @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave pkgdesc = Advanced trading and charting application. pkgver = 6.7.10 - pkgrel = 3 + pkgrel = 4 url = https://www.motivewave.com arch = x86_64 license = custom @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ pkgbase = motivewave depends = xorg-xrandr provides = motivewave conflicts = motivewave-latest-bin - source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/500/motivewave_.deb + source = motivewave-6.7.10.deb:: https://downloads.motivewave.com/builds/{}/motivewave{6.7.10}_amd64.deb sha512sums = c97e3bb78236d6ef1ae8581e29b128e6ee512f8241617dbcab5989f3068bfa6bbe9b9c091bb09b238ea891f59e6c12ef13ceee079610f3fc95722c58c4769bb9
-- Regards
Xavier
Il 05/09/23 00:56, Xavier Baez ha scritto:
I want to maintain the package. motivewave-latest-bin was supposed to be deleted yesterday.
If that package is removed then motivewave wouldn’t have any conflicting packages.
motivewave-latest-bin package was removed in order to make you sleep well. Apart this, when an Arch Linux staff member (I always used my @archlinux.org email address to communicate with you) there are no hidden traps.
motivewave has motivewave-latest-bin listed as conflicts (which is accurate) Andmotivewave-latest-bin has motivewave listed as conflicts (which is accurate)
this is not accurate at all. motivewave doesn't need to have motivewave-latest-bin conflicts as they are mutually exclusive and the newer/different package has to specify any conflicts, not the opposite.
Xiota claims the motivewave-latest-bin package will be deleted, but only after I remove motivewave-latest-bin as a conflict.
I wonder what’s the interest in me removing motivewave-latest-bin first, and why does he even cares about that.
Xiota demonstrated me he's able, has the skills, cares about the package and he's also helpful in solving your packaging issues. So in the end, I deleted the duplicated package to assure you there's nothing wrong or hidden or to fear (unfortunately you ignored also this point so far). So please, make this as my last message about this package: This is my reviewed PKGBUILD https://paste.muflone.com/view/tEy5-7M (not sure about the dependencies, this has gone too far) Follow my instructions I left you in https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/motivewave#comment-932399 and PLEASE don't require me to intervene with this package anymore. -- Fabio Castelli aka Muflone
participants (6)
-
Aaron Liu
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Muflone
-
Polarian
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Xavier Baez