[aur-general] Please remove gsmartcontrol-svn package from AUR
Hi, I got the below sent to me regarding a pkg I have in AUR. I guess it should be deleted as per the request. I believe that requires a mail to this list? https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gsmartcontrol-svn/ I verified [1] the sender's address is indeed the upstream developer. thanks. [1] https://gsmartcontrol.sourceforge.io/home/index.php/Support -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Please remove gsmartcontrol-svn package Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:26:28 +0400 From: Alexander Shaduri <ashaduri@gmail.com> To: archlinux@jelmail.com Hi, I'm the developer of GSmartControl and I see there is an Arch package of gsmartcontrol-svn here: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gsmartcontrol-svn/ Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public consumption at all. It may not build, may not run, may destroy your data, etc... Plus, it's in the middle of active rewrite/refactoring right now and is in no state to be even compiled. Thanks, Alexander
I don't see it as mandatory, but if I was the maintainer of this development package I would do as the developer says and request package deletion. In order to request deletion, you use the menu at the right of your package's page in AUR, "Submit request", select the proper type and provide the reasoning. FYI: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Other_requests Best regards, Rafael Fontenelle 2018-02-09 13:01 GMT-02:00 John Lane <archlinux@jelmail.com>:
Hi, I got the below sent to me regarding a pkg I have in AUR.
I guess it should be deleted as per the request. I believe that requires a mail to this list?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gsmartcontrol-svn/
I verified [1] the sender's address is indeed the upstream developer.
thanks.
[1] https://gsmartcontrol.sourceforge.io/home/index.php/Support
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Please remove gsmartcontrol-svn package Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:26:28 +0400 From: Alexander Shaduri <ashaduri@gmail.com> To: archlinux@jelmail.com
Hi,
I'm the developer of GSmartControl and I see there is an Arch package of gsmartcontrol-svn here: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gsmartcontrol-svn/
Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public consumption at all. It may not build, may not run, may destroy your data, etc... Plus, it's in the middle of active rewrite/refactoring right now and is in no state to be even compiled.
Thanks, Alexander
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:13:37 -0200 Rafael Fontenelle <rafaelff@gnome.org> wrote:
I don't see it as mandatory, but if I was the maintainer of this development package I would do as the developer says and request package deletion.
I, on the other hand, wouldn't. The entire point of -<vcs> packages is to run the incomplete development code, anyone that's running it should understand that it's incomplete and potentially unstable.
Doug Newgard via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> hat am 9. Februar 2018 um 16:22 geschrieben:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:13:37 -0200 Rafael Fontenelle <rafaelff@gnome.org> wrote:
I don't see it as mandatory, but if I was the maintainer of this development package I would do as the developer says and request package deletion.
I, on the other hand, wouldn't. The entire point of -<vcs> packages is to run the incomplete development code, anyone that's running it should understand that it's incomplete and potentially unstable.
I don't see how that justifies explicitely going the wishes of upstream. If the author doesn't want feedback on his development code, that's his choice and it's not our place to motivate him otherwise by keeping this package. Alad
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:16:57 +0100 (CET) Alad Wenter via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Doug Newgard via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> hat am 9. Februar 2018 um 16:22 geschrieben:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:13:37 -0200 Rafael Fontenelle <rafaelff@gnome.org> wrote:
I don't see it as mandatory, but if I was the maintainer of this development package I would do as the developer says and request package deletion.
I, on the other hand, wouldn't. The entire point of -<vcs> packages is to run the incomplete development code, anyone that's running it should understand that it's incomplete and potentially unstable.
I don't see how that justifies explicitely going the wishes of upstream. If the author doesn't want feedback on his development code, that's his choice and it's not our place to motivate him otherwise by keeping this package.
Alad
Getting feedback on the code doesn't have much do to with the existence of this package. Two totally different issues.
Doug Newgard via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> hat am 14. Februar 2018 um 14:33 geschrieben:
Getting feedback on the code doesn't have much do to with the existence of this package. Two totally different issues. Well, upstream disagrees. To quote his email again,
"Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public consumption at all." Alad
On 02/14/2018 09:09 AM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
Doug Newgard via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> hat am 14. Februar 2018 um 14:33 geschrieben:
Getting feedback on the code doesn't have much do to with the existence of this package. Two totally different issues. Well, upstream disagrees. To quote his email again,
"Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public consumption at all."
That seems like a problem which is solved by upstream providing instructions on the bug reporting page, that bugs should only ever be reported for stable releases and not for the development code. Taking the package down from the AUR will not solve the root of his problem, even if it does hide the worst offender. And I'm unconvinced that we should punish people who just want to use the latest code in blissful peace. So, I guess the question is, what does "not intended for public consumption at all" actually mean? - If it means "the code is unstable and probably broken, so it is a bad idea to use it and I won't support you in doing so", then the package should be deleted for reasons that have nothing to do with the developer's request. - If it means "I don't like to be bothered by bugreports because I consider nothing to be official unless I make a stable release, and I would rather discover the issue myself", then there is no reason to stop people from running perfectly good development software that has been publicly published. And the developer should just tell people his preferences on the support page where he leaves his email-based bug reporting instructions. ... Aside: ewwwwwww email-based bugtracker. He probably gets a fair number of duplicate bug reports for the versions he *does* want people to report bugs for, because intelligent and capable users still have no way of determining if a bug was already reported. If he wants less distracting bug mail, he is going about it entirely the wrong way... -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:29:29 CET Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> > "Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for
> > it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public
> > consumption at all."
> [...]
> - If it means "I don't like to be bothered by bugreports because I
> consider nothing to be official unless I make a stable release, and I
> would rather discover the issue myself", then there is no reason to
> stop people from running perfectly good development software that has
> been publicly published. And the developer should just tell people his
> preferences on the support page where he leaves his email-based bug
> reporting instructions.
In this case, he should not publish the development code anyway, since nothing
will stop users from submitting bug reports for development code (whether it
is mail based bug reporting, mailing list based, using Git{hub,lab,*}-style
issues or an actual bugtracker).
--
Simon Doppler (dopsi)
E: dopsi@dopsi.ch
> Simon Doppler <dopsi@dopsi.ch> hat am 14. Februar 2018 um 15:46 geschrieben:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:29:29 CET Eli Schwartz via aur-general
> wrote:
> > > "Could you please remove this package? I keep getting bug reports for
> > > it, but the thing is, the SVN version is not intended for public
> > > consumption at all."
> > [...]
> > - If it means "I don't like to be bothered by bugreports because I
> > consider nothing to be official unless I make a stable release, and I
> > would rather discover the issue myself", then there is no reason to
> > stop people from running perfectly good development software that has
> > been publicly published. And the developer should just tell people his
> > preferences on the support page where he leaves his email-based bug
> > reporting instructions.
>
> In this case, he should not publish the development code anyway, since nothing
> will stop users from submitting bug reports for development code (whether it
> is mail based bug reporting, mailing list based, using Git{hub,lab,*}-style
> issues or an actual bugtracker).
>
It's disappointing how everyone shifts the blame towards and ridicules upstream, rather than respect their wishes regarding the _packaging of their own code_. Those are practices that remind of certain other distributions. But whatever - I shall not further argue about it.
John: Please include a post_install/post_upgrade message in your package that warns users on _not_ to complain to upstream in case of errors.
Alad
On 02/14/2018 10:19 AM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
It's disappointing how everyone shifts the blame towards and ridicules upstream, rather than respect their wishes regarding the _packaging of their own code_. Those are practices that remind of certain other distributions. But whatever - I shall not further argue about it.
John: Please include a post_install/post_upgrade message in your package that warns users on _not_ to complain to upstream in case of errors.
I'm not really sure this is comparable. I fully support the use of post_install/post_upgrade in this situation. On top of the fact that as opposed to e.g. xscreensaver :D we are not advertising this as the default version for users to install (it is explicitly a VCS development package). All I'm saying is I don't feel comfortable telling users they are not allowed to use it *at all*, because upstream asked us to forbid its packaging *period*. Anything we can do to ensure that users are alerted to the precise relationship this code has to upstream and the support thereof, can only be a good thing. This is rather different from censoring its existence. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 14/02/18 15:19, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
John: Please include a post_install/post_upgrade message in your package that warns users on _not_ to complain to upstream in case of errors.
Alad
I have done this now. I have also disowned it because I no longer have a requirement for it and it would be better if someone could take it on that actually needs it. Note that the package in its current state does not build. I have added a note to this effect to its AUR page.
-------- Original Message -------- On February 14, 2018 3:46 PM, Simon Doppler dopsi@dopsi.ch wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:29:29 CET Eli Schwartz via aur-general In this case, he should not publish the development code anyway, since nothing will stop users from submitting bug reports for development code (whether it is mail based bug reporting, mailing list based, using Git{hub,lab,*}-style issues or an actual bugtracker). Simon Doppler (dopsi) E: dopsi@dopsi.ch
I seriously wonder, though. How *do* you so consistently break things between releases? cheers! mar77i Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Probably by committing directly to master for every commit instead of merging from another branch when you're finished your new feature. I do this for small one person projects, i don't care if this commit breaks the build cause I'll fix it in the next one. On 15 February 2018 at 19:54, mar77i via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- On February 14, 2018 3:46 PM, Simon Doppler dopsi@dopsi.ch wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 February 2018 15:29:29 CET Eli Schwartz via aur-general In this case, he should not publish the development code anyway, since nothing will stop users from submitting bug reports for development code (whether it is mail based bug reporting, mailing list based, using Git{hub,lab,*}-style issues or an actual bugtracker). Simon Doppler (dopsi) E: dopsi@dopsi.ch
I seriously wonder, though. How *do* you so consistently break things between releases?
cheers! mar77i
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
On 09/02/18 15:13, Rafael Fontenelle wrote:
I don't see it as mandatory, but if I was the maintainer of this development package I would do as the developer says and request package deletion.
In order to request deletion, you use the menu at the right of your package's page in AUR, "Submit request", select the proper type and provide the reasoning.
FYI: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Other_requests
Best regards, Rafael Fontenelle
Thank you. That is what I have done. I did look for a 'delete' option; I did not think it would be a sub-option of 'submit request'. But then it is Friday :)
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:01:34PM +0000, John Lane wrote:
Hi, I got the below sent to me regarding a pkg I have in AUR.
I guess it should be deleted as per the request. I believe that requires a mail to this list?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gsmartcontrol-svn/
I verified [1] the sender's address is indeed the upstream developer.
Such requests should be filed by using the AUR interface, namely "File Request", "Deletion". A copy of your request is then sent to the aur-requests mailing list. Alad
participants (8)
-
Alad Wenter
-
Doug Newgard
-
Eli Schwartz
-
John Lane
-
mar77i＠protonmail.ch
-
Morgan Adamiec
-
Rafael Fontenelle
-
Simon Doppler