[aur-general] trusted users business
Hi, i've compiled a list of votes from the last 6 proposals just to see if it happened by accident to not vote. http://dev.archlinux.org/~ibiru/votes.txt from this only 3 users didn't vote for more than 3 times. Ranguvar, swiergot and vegai. From our wiki none are marked as inactive. Ranguvar i know he's active in this list, not so much in voting, swiergot i don't remember him at all, vegai i guess is busy. What happened guys? -- Ionuț
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ionuț Bîru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
i've compiled a list of votes from the last 6 proposals just to see if it happened by accident to not vote.
http://dev.archlinux.org/~ibiru/votes.txt
from this only 3 users didn't vote for more than 3 times.
Ranguvar, swiergot and vegai. From our wiki none are marked as inactive.
Ranguvar i know he's active in this list, not so much in voting, swiergot i don't remember him at all, vegai i guess is busy.
What happened guys?
-- Ionuț
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section: "This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them. Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **" I don't wanna point anybody, I am in fact as a simply user and not tu, grateful with all people who contributes to Arch, but it's time to know who still in the boat... So IMO we should start a removal procedure for swiergot (Sorry Jaroslav is nothing personal, I don't know you), and going through with Ranguvar (who since he is relatively new, I will gave him a right of replication) .. and vegai don't know if still interested in TU Duties, we can ask him personally what happened.., he seems to be Active. So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared). -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him). -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
You are wrong to start this removal process. None of those Trusted Users have prevented quorum from being met yet. Please reverse your actions. If you do want to remove them, you should offer some other reason and we need to vote on it, or we could vote on a change to the bylaws to redefine inactivity. Thanks.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
You are wrong to start this removal process. None of those Trusted Users have prevented quorum from being met yet. Please reverse your actions.
If you do want to remove them, you should offer some other reason and we need to vote on it, or we could vote on a change to the bylaws to redefine inactivity.
Thanks.
Bah, I should vote for a change the bylaws, I missunderstood what I quoted before (Isaac's did a good point). Facts are (speaking generally): a) Removal of a TU is very hard, (even if he/she or they aren't doing anything), we should need some 'automatic way' or .. less bereucratic way to do that. b) TU System on AUR need so much code ... (it's very limited) and I can't or edit/delete that votation progress. It's invalid, of course, but at the system level isn't. c) I've speaked on the IRC channel, which btw loui we always would like to have you there (don't know why you don't like to enter or randomly :P), so I missunderstood somepart of the bylaws as Isaac pointed me, but nobody told me anything too.. so I am accepting my fault, but maybe if you were on our irc channel, you can advice me before to send the application etc etc. We're waiting yet for a swiergot's response yet.. so if past 24 hours of the last mail, he doesn't replied anything I will ask for his removal (on the TU channel though, and oh, again, you Loui are invited to join us!, we are so wonderful people there :D) And now, with Ranguvar, as I said, i let this occasion go with him, because he's pretty new, and he maybe forgot to mark himself as Inactive, but when you come back, please let us know :). See you. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
On Fri 16 Jul 2010 10:14 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
You are wrong to start this removal process. None of those Trusted Users have prevented quorum from being met yet. Please reverse your actions.
If you do want to remove them, you should offer some other reason and we need to vote on it, or we could vote on a change to the bylaws to redefine inactivity.
Bah, I should vote for a change the bylaws, I missunderstood what I quoted before (Isaac's did a good point).
Facts are (speaking generally):
a) Removal of a TU is very hard, (even if he/she or they aren't doing anything), we should need some 'automatic way' or .. less bereucratic way to do that.
Removing a TU is not any harder than adding a TU, do you propose that we can remove TUs willy-nilly without votes? I don't agree with that idea.
b) TU System on AUR need so much code ... (it's very limited) and I can't or edit/delete that votation progress. It's invalid, of course, but at the system level isn't.
That's fine. It's just a method to collect votes - nothing more really. We used to do it via the mailing list.
c) I've speaked on the IRC channel, which btw loui we always would like to have you there (don't know why you don't like to enter or randomly :P), so I missunderstood somepart of the bylaws as Isaac pointed me, but nobody told me anything too.. so I am accepting my fault, but maybe if you were on our irc channel, you can advice me before to send the application etc etc.
Yeah you should better familiarise yourself with the bylaws and ask for clarification if there's any misunderstanding.
We're waiting yet for a swiergot's response yet.. so if past 24 hours of the last mail, he doesn't replied anything I will ask for his removal (on the TU channel though, and oh, again, you Loui are invited to join us!, we are so wonderful people there :D)
Decision bearing discussion needs to be done over the mailing list, not IRC. We have TUs from all over the globe. IRC is not practical. People have to work or sleep at different times and may not be able to attend an IRC meeting. Cheers
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 16 Jul 2010 10:14 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
You are wrong to start this removal process. None of those Trusted Users have prevented quorum from being met yet. Please reverse your actions.
If you do want to remove them, you should offer some other reason and we need to vote on it, or we could vote on a change to the bylaws to redefine inactivity.
Bah, I should vote for a change the bylaws, I missunderstood what I quoted before (Isaac's did a good point).
Facts are (speaking generally):
a) Removal of a TU is very hard, (even if he/she or they aren't doing anything), we should need some 'automatic way' or .. less bereucratic way to do that.
Removing a TU is not any harder than adding a TU, do you propose that we can remove TUs willy-nilly without votes? I don't agree with that idea.
We discuss it, on IRC there was 5 tu online at that moment, I said "I will start the votation of removal", nobody told me anything, they let me go in fact I did two mistakes, i put 7 days, and gang told me "hey pal is just 5 days"... we all missunderstood it, but my point is, why we have to discuss it so long?.. it's just a barrier, for example at today (two days after) the guy is still dissapeared (what is his timezone -48 ?), I remember you again, we did the votation process (it's running as you see .. obviously is invalid ATM), we just skip the discussion about his removal because we though that it was automatically, that's it.. isn't automatically, good .. so for that moment, is started the discussion process ... will see on the next week, I hope somebody will be in charge of creating the votation process or something, not me again, thanks. And about the automatic removal.. If a people isn't doing anything .. and he's dissapeared, wait for 7 days ... discussing what? the process of discussion should be short IMO (three days is enough).. and when the facts are heavy like .. 0 packages in AUR ... in community is everything almost out of date and have workload on TODO from more than 2 months ago and he isn't marked as inactive.. is unresponsability and disrespect with the rest of the team... in those cases, I think discussion .. is beurecratic, he should will start to a votation process directly ... but .. that's it.. is just my opinion, and I don't want to discuss it in this thread. (we are talking about TU duties not about bylaws), and I know that I can propose something better and you can vote to accept or it, but ... no thanks, is hard to make happy too much people, I just share my opinion, I dislike un-responsible/slacker people, that's it, there's a life, everyone of us have it, heavys or not, write two lines asking for some time.. is less than 5 minutes (even writting as a turtle like 60 wpm or less).
b) TU System on AUR need so much code ... (it's very limited) and I can't or edit/delete that votation progress. It's invalid, of course, but at the system level isn't.
That's fine. It's just a method to collect votes - nothing more really. We used to do it via the mailing list.
IIRC we werent TUs for those times :) (but I know it, I read the history of the list, Im just poiting that *we* in this case is like .. weird in our cases), but since that times, the TU system should be improved ... As I said, *WE* should be thinking for patches :) (I can point you because you're the AUR maintainer, but I know that there more hands working on it... as the votation that **I (Angel 'angvp' Velasquez')** started)
c) I've speaked on the IRC channel, which btw loui we always would like to have you there (don't know why you don't like to enter or randomly :P), so I missunderstood somepart of the bylaws as Isaac pointed me, but nobody told me anything too.. so I am accepting my fault, but maybe if you were on our irc channel, you can advice me before to send the application etc etc.
Yeah you should better familiarise yourself with the bylaws and ask for clarification if there's any misunderstanding.
As I said we were 5 TUs on the irc channel and nobody said something they were ONLINE not IDLE, but, I know, I started the votation process is my mistake, I am not justifying it, and you're pointing me without know the whole situation, as I said, please join to the channel which is private, and we can discuss our private stuff there, instead of shooting and then aim.
We're waiting yet for a swiergot's response yet.. so if past 24 hours of the last mail, he doesn't replied anything I will ask for his removal (on the TU channel though, and oh, again, you Loui are invited to join us!, we are so wonderful people there :D)
Decision bearing discussion needs to be done over the mailing list, not IRC. We have TUs from all over the globe. IRC is not practical. People have to work or sleep at different times and may not be able to attend an IRC meeting.
It was an e-mail, then I said on IRC, and the mailing list that I was starting the process.. then, almost like 1 hour ago it was.. Next time, I let it go, really, in fact, I shouldn't start the process for removal, I will let you decide what to do, and most important, I will let you and the tu crew DO something about removal or not of these people. So, that's it, I'm accepting my mistake, not justifying it, but the fact is, this guy is candidate for removal, leave it or take it, as I said, is nothing personal with the guy, I almost know him, but I won't do anything more for starting removal of anybody, if a votation process is started I will vote, and that's my last word. Good weekend, people! -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
I've restored swiergot's Trusted User status. You guys need a different/better reason, and you also need a discussion period. The vote currently in place is invalid.
On 07/16/2010 02:49 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez<angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
I've restored swiergot's Trusted User status. You guys need a different/better reason, and you also need a discussion period. The vote currently in place is invalid.
Angel kinda rushed things. This thread was started to ask clarification about this situation and a starting point for discussion period. I'm happy with Ranguvar clarification and i'm waiting the others. -- Ionuț
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure...
AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.) -Isaac
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure...
AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
-Isaac
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.). Thanks, Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
On 16.07.2010 00:08, Ranguvar wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure... AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
-Isaac
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
Thanks, Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :) -- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 16.07.2010 00:08, Ranguvar wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure... AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
-Isaac
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
Thanks, Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
On 07/16/2010 02:15 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 16.07.2010 00:08, Ranguvar wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure... AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
-Isaac
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
Thanks, Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
no. only lib32-libgl and lib32-nvidia-utils, which already are in community. lets stick in the future in $subject and start another thread if you feel you need to add something about packaging :D -- Ionuț
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:25 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 07/16/2010 02:15 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
no. only lib32-libgl and lib32-nvidia-utils, which already are in community.
lets stick in the future in $subject and start another thread if you feel you need to add something about packaging :D
Your wish is my command. Okay now that I have your answer I understand my assumptions were mistaken, only the libgl/nvidia-utils packages are 'app-facing' in that sense. A nagging question that I've been having in the back of my mind, how similar is Arch's lib32 stuff with the multi-lib stuff other distros (random example Ubuntu since that's my previous experience) do. When I first started using Arch I set a chroot up for my wine/skype/google-earth on the understanding that lib32 would always be 'unofficial', but recently I've seen more lib32 packages making it to [community]. Would lib32 make Arch multi-lib, then?
On 16.07.2010 01:38, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:25 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 07/16/2010 02:15 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
no. only lib32-libgl and lib32-nvidia-utils, which already are in community.
lets stick in the future in $subject and start another thread if you feel you need to add something about packaging :D
Your wish is my command.
Okay now that I have your answer I understand my assumptions were mistaken, only the libgl/nvidia-utils packages are 'app-facing' in that sense.
A nagging question that I've been having in the back of my mind, how similar is Arch's lib32 stuff with the multi-lib stuff other distros (random example Ubuntu since that's my previous experience) do. When I first started using Arch I set a chroot up for my wine/skype/google-earth on the understanding that lib32 would always be 'unofficial', but recently I've seen more lib32 packages making it to [community].
Would lib32 make Arch multi-lib, then?
Arch doesn't have official multilib support yet which is why compiling cross platform is such a pain in the ass. We have a few littered lib32 packages to ease most of the pain but we don't even have an official cross32-gcc. In Arch you can currently not have a true full multi lib system easily. Do we even want to change that? I don't know. multilib seems dirty to many people. Personally, I consider lib32 stuff to be transitional on the way to true 64bit and probably not too much effort should be wasted for 32bit stuff. chroots do the job mostly fine. I therefore encourage Ranguvar to package the remaining lib32 packages for community and move bin32-wine in as well. Jan had a working wine-wow64 earlier but it is a freak show. -- Sven-Hendrik
On 07/16/2010 02:38 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:25 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 07/16/2010 02:15 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
no. only lib32-libgl and lib32-nvidia-utils, which already are in community.
lets stick in the future in $subject and start another thread if you feel you need to add something about packaging :D
Your wish is my command.
Okay now that I have your answer I understand my assumptions were mistaken, only the libgl/nvidia-utils packages are 'app-facing' in that sense.
A nagging question that I've been having in the back of my mind, how similar is Arch's lib32 stuff with the multi-lib stuff other distros (random example Ubuntu since that's my previous experience) do. When I first started using Arch I set a chroot up for my wine/skype/google-earth on the understanding that lib32 would always be 'unofficial', but recently I've seen more lib32 packages making it to [community].
Would lib32 make Arch multi-lib, then?
lib32 packages are just a hack to run i686 packages on x86_64. to call arch a multilib we need first to have a multilib toolchain. -- Ionuț
On 16/07/10 09:52, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 07/16/2010 02:38 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:25 +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 07/16/2010 02:15 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
-- Lord Sven-Hendrik "Svenstaro" Haase
I second the bin32-wine thing =). For it to be useful though I think lib32-all-graphic-drivers need to be available?
no. only lib32-libgl and lib32-nvidia-utils, which already are in community.
lets stick in the future in $subject and start another thread if you feel you need to add something about packaging :D
Your wish is my command.
Okay now that I have your answer I understand my assumptions were mistaken, only the libgl/nvidia-utils packages are 'app-facing' in that sense.
A nagging question that I've been having in the back of my mind, how similar is Arch's lib32 stuff with the multi-lib stuff other distros (random example Ubuntu since that's my previous experience) do. When I first started using Arch I set a chroot up for my wine/skype/google-earth on the understanding that lib32 would always be 'unofficial', but recently I've seen more lib32 packages making it to [community].
Would lib32 make Arch multi-lib, then?
lib32 packages are just a hack to run i686 packages on x86_64. to call arch a multilib we need first to have a multilib toolchain.
Which is unlikely to ever happen... I think all this lib32 stuff is crap. Chroots are the way to go and are so much cleaner. Allan
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:44 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 16/07/10 09:52, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
lib32 packages are just a hack to run i686 packages on x86_64. to call arch a multilib we need first to have a multilib toolchain.
Which is unlikely to ever happen...
I think all this lib32 stuff is crap. Chroots are the way to go and are so much cleaner.
Allan
I differ to your wisdom =). This sounds exactly like what I surmised when I first searched out the running of 32-bit apps in 64-bit Arch. In this spirit of "chroots are better" shouldn't it be made easier to maintain a chroot? For example having a 'pacman32' or 'pacmanchroot' package (would simply call pacman with user-configurable chroot locations and has its own pacman.conf)? One of the more 'hassling' things about maintaining my chroot is having to update each chroot separately (yes I could script that, will get round to that someday). Note that I'm not talking about automating chroot creation (I think Xyne already has a package which does that by abusing the .install file), but simplifying chroot maintenance. And before you say it, yes, patches welcome =). Maybe in August I'll look into it.
I think all this lib32 stuff is crap. Chroots are the way to go and are so much cleaner.
Allan
I differ to your wisdom =). This sounds exactly like what I surmised when I first searched out the running of 32-bit apps in 64-bit Arch.
In this spirit of "chroots are better" shouldn't it be made easier to maintain a chroot? For example having a 'pacman32' or 'pacmanchroot' package (would simply call pacman with user-configurable chroot locations and has its own pacman.conf)? One of the more 'hassling' things about maintaining my chroot is having to update each chroot separately (yes I could script that, will get round to that someday).
Note that I'm not talking about automating chroot creation (I think Xyne already has a package which does that by abusing the .install file), but simplifying chroot maintenance. And before you say it, yes, patches welcome =). Maybe in August I'll look into it.
I resent your characterization of my post_install function as abuse. No .install files were harmed in the making of my arch32-light package. :) Seriously though, what's wrong with it? All it does is create the minimal chroot directory hierarchy in the "standard" location, create default pacman32* files from the current pacman files, then install the latest version of the 6 packages required for a minimal chroot. If I moved that into the build or package functions then all of those files would be included in the pacman db filelist, which doesn't make sense as they are dynamic (i.e. updating packages in the chroot will create a discrepancy between that list and the actual files). I'm obviously biased, but I think arch32-light is a very clean and easy way to set up and manage a 32-bit chroot. Here's the AUR page if anyone wants to take a look: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37398 *pacman32 is a wrapper for the host's pacman to facilitate chroot package management from outside of the chroot, as you've described. It's trivial to write an alias or script to manage a chroot now that pacman includes the "--arch" option (note that pacman32 in this package does a bit more by e.g. ensuring that the arch32 daemon is running).
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
I resent your characterization of my post_install function as abuse. No .install files were harmed in the making of my arch32-light package. :)
Ah, I think I must have been taken a bit too literally here. I was actually quoting your own description of how arch32-light does its work =). I myself think its a good way to set up a chroot, and should probably be considered the 'canonical' way currently (if I'm not wrong, you basically automate most of the steps in the 32-bit chroot wiki). I was actually talking about a package/script to handle chroot maintenance generally, where your pacman32 is specific to the arch32-light package. Of course, having bauerbill handle that for me would be lovely =)
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
I resent your characterization of my post_install function as abuse. No .install files were harmed in the making of my arch32-light package. :)
Ah, I think I must have been taken a bit too literally here. I was actually quoting your own description of how arch32-light does its work =). I myself think its a good way to set up a chroot, and should probably be considered the 'canonical' way currently (if I'm not wrong, you basically automate most of the steps in the 32-bit chroot wiki).
I was actually talking about a package/script to handle chroot maintenance generally, where your pacman32 is specific to the arch32-light package. Of course, having bauerbill handle that for me would be lovely =)
Don't worry, I was only joking about the resentment, whence the smiley. And yes, the package automates the steps in the Wiki to set up the minimal 32-bit chroot. There is also an "arch32" package in the AUR that follows the steps to create a full chroot. What I meant with my previous footnote is that it is easy to create aliases and scripts to handle chroots. All you really need are the "--root", "--cachedir" and "--arch" options, and occasionally the "--config" option. E.g.: ~~~~~{Bash} function in_arch_root { root_dir="$1" shift "$@" --root "$root_dir" --cachedir "$root_dir/var/cache/pacman/pkg" } in_arch_root "/opt/arch32" pacman --arch i686 -Syu ~~~~~ If you have multiple chroots then you should probably use a common cachedir (e.g. /var/cache/pacman/pkg), although it would only be accessible from outside of the chroots, which may or may not be a problem depending on how you manage them. Links might work too. You could also create update functions that loop over a list or array of chroots and update each one accordingly. It all comes down to just a few lines in .bashrc or a bash script, so there isn't any real reason to try to package it. Btw, bauerbill can handle chroots using the same options, as pacman's options are a subset of powerpill's and bauerbill's options .
On Fri 16 Jul 2010 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 16.07.2010 00:08, Ranguvar wrote:
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
I think the point is that he's on vacation. If you do work while vacation, it's not really a vacation anymore is it?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 17:00, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 16 Jul 2010 00:12 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 16.07.2010 00:08, Ranguvar wrote:
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
I would be very delighted to see bin32-wine moving into community. If you can package all the lib32 packages it depends on you will a) be able to do that b) have some packages that make good community candidates anyway (lib32 stuff). Also, why can't you do it while on vacation? Surely you have your SSH tunnel, right? :)
I think the point is that he's on vacation. If you do work while vacation, it's not really a vacation anymore is it?
As hopefully the last word on this subject (because it's semi- off topic now it seems) I would happily update it, except I am using a relative's computer, and I would rather not go on it too much :) That, and I turned off my computer, because I didn't want to have it sucking power for more than a week. And given the "relative's computer" bit, I don't really want to go through a complicated Cygwin/PuTTY solution or such :) -- Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
Hi guys, Sorry for being silent for so long. I probably should have resigned months ago, a lot has changed in my life and although I tried to get back to business on several occasions, I'm affraid this will never happen, or at least not in the predictable future so I guess there's no point in keeping me as a TU. Maybe one day I will have enough time again and re-apply as I enjoyed contributing to Arch very much and regret I can no longer do that. Thanks. Take care, Jarek
On Tue 20 Jul 2010 15:50 +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
Sorry for being silent for so long. I probably should have resigned months ago, a lot has changed in my life and although I tried to get back to business on several occasions, I'm affraid this will never happen, or at least not in the predictable future so I guess there's no point in keeping me as a TU. Maybe one day I will have enough time again and re-apply as I enjoyed contributing to Arch very much and regret I can no longer do that.
Aww sorry to see you go. Take care.
On 07/16/2010 01:08 AM, Ranguvar wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree <ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
"This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums. **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure...
AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
-Isaac
I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections. I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay more attention to the mailing list in the future. Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York in about a week. At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable for binary distribution, etc.).
Thanks, Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
just mark yourself inactive in our wiki to prevent this kind of situations http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users -- Ionuț
On 15 July 2010 05:18, Ionuț Bîru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
i've compiled a list of votes from the last 6 proposals just to see if it happened by accident to not vote.
http://dev.archlinux.org/~ibiru/votes.txt
from this only 3 users didn't vote for more than 3 times.
Ranguvar, swiergot and vegai. From our wiki none are marked as inactive.
Ranguvar i know he's active in this list, not so much in voting, swiergot i don't remember him at all, vegai i guess is busy.
What happened guys?
Vesa aka vegai was last seen 2/3 days ago asking for pkgbuild.com access, so he's definitely around at least as far as dev duties go. Jaroslaw aka swiergot aka jswierczynski is a long-time TU - his appearances may be sparse so you'll have to wait for his reply. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On 16 July 2010 16:45, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 July 2010 05:18, Ionuț Bîru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
i've compiled a list of votes from the last 6 proposals just to see if it happened by accident to not vote.
http://dev.archlinux.org/~ibiru/votes.txt
from this only 3 users didn't vote for more than 3 times.
Ranguvar, swiergot and vegai. From our wiki none are marked as inactive.
Ranguvar i know he's active in this list, not so much in voting, swiergot i don't remember him at all, vegai i guess is busy.
What happened guys?
Vesa aka vegai was last seen 2/3 days ago asking for pkgbuild.com access, so he's definitely around at least as far as dev duties go. Jaroslaw aka swiergot aka jswierczynski is a long-time TU - his appearances may be sparse so you'll have to wait for his reply.
I forgot to add: http://www.mail-archive.com/aur-general@archlinux.org/msg02600.html -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
participants (11)
-
Allan McRae
-
Angel Velásquez
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Isaac Dupree
-
Jaroslaw Swierczynski
-
Loui Chang
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Ranguvar
-
Ray Rashif
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase
-
Xyne