I postponed this task too many times in latest months.
My application is an extract of the conversations between me and my sponsor, Thorsten Töpper, after his proposal in the end of 2011.
- Introduction -
I thought a lot of times about applying for becoming a TU before, and it would be surely a great experience and possibility for me.
I'm really into free software, as in its principles, and I try contributing every day and in every form according to my possibilities as much as I can. Indeed, this would be the next step to let me contribute more efficiently.
The AUR is a fascinating and innovative community driven project, that evolves a distribution development into a more bottom-up approach, letting users be part of it acting in a self learning machine.
Keeping the AUR clean and productive so, has a central role in the Arch development and it would be great to cover.
- About me -
I'm a 26yo curious Italian guy with a more self driven than academic programming preparation who believes in and randomly contribute to free software, mainly by reporting bugs and submitting patches to upstream projects and of course maintaining a good amount of packages on AUR [1].
I'm an active Arch user/contributor/KISSophile since 4 years now, an half of my total Linux experience as my main and only OS.
I'm interested in every form of mind and life expression exploration, and in any instrument that may grow up our knowledge about us and what's around us.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=speps
- Resolutions -
Since I'm involved into the Arch Audio project by submitting several build scripts and binary packages to its repository, I'd surely add the most popular in [community] (ex. supercollider, csound, pd, lv2 plugins), and I would help Ray Rashif maintaining the ones already there, of course.
Being an out-of-the-box pro-audio ready distro (in terms of officially distributed packages) would be great for Arch, since the number of multimedia-oriented users, developers and projects using Arch as their main platform is growing day by day (LAC 2012 has been a testimonial ;)).
Also, I would contribute adopting and maintaining orphans and of course taking care of bug reports.
- Identity (WARNING: heavily verbose) -
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:24:20 +0100 Thorsten Töpper atsutane@freethoughts.de wrote:
Though due to the recent signature introduction a GPG Key is also necessary and as I can't find your real name anywhere, this would also be necessary, there were strong internal discussions because of Xyne who can't reveal his identity. If that also a matter for you I fear that you won't be accepted.
I followed the whole discussion on ML, as it is of my interest, and I must admit the Xyne presence in the Arch team was always a good point for me to assert the possibility of contributing "officially" and "anonymously" at the same time, in the hope that is not just an exception.
The meaning of identity on the Internet is still something not so defined to me through its limits, consequences and abuses. So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity. This could be perceived as stupid or too paranoid for some, but for me is just a way to taste things without risking to be too much implied till the point of no return. I'm not referring to responsibilities, but to the possibility of having a choice.
The adoption of GPG Keys for signing packages intention is to prevent malicious hijacking through mirrors and to certificate their provenance, and not to identify a packager in his real life. Also, even using a "real name" is not a way to assume a real existence, since hypothetically a real life identity could be easily faked too.
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key, and I really do not see a real difference between mine and your or the one of another TU, since actually we do not personally know each others.
I like to think that a digital identity just deals with the reputation that comes from the quality of the work done like from the behaviours in social relations, and a nickname is enough to cover its identification.
This is just my point till now, not a way to convince someone else. I say "till now", cause this is the first time I was asked to reveal my real identity for being crucial in contributing or to be trusted.
Differently, some years ago Giovanni Scafora asked my name for including it as a contributor in a [extra] PKGBUILD (cpufrequtils) after sending him a patch. In that case I took the decision of keeping on my way.
I'll have to think about this since, as you say, probably another Xyne would be not allowed. My idea is, trying an application as simply "speps" and on a negative response taking the big decision. What do you think?
Sorry again for the massive length of this mail, I can't be too synthetic in such cases :(
Regards and thanks
P.S.: the X-Face is my real eye ;)
- speps -
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:26:19 +0200 speps speps@gmx.com wrote:
I postponed this task too many times in latest months.
My application is an extract of the conversations between me and my sponsor, Thorsten Töpper, after his proposal in the end of 2011.
I confirm my sponsorship, let the discussion period begin. :-)
* Thorsten Töpper atsutane@freethoughts.de [26.04.2012 21:19]:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:26:19 +0200 speps speps@gmx.com wrote:
I postponed this task too many times in latest months.
My application is an extract of the conversations between me and my sponsor, Thorsten Töpper, after his proposal in the end of 2011.
I confirm my sponsorship, let the discussion period begin. :-)
I use many of speps' packages and they are brilliant! In case there are mistakes, he's very responsive and polite and fixes it very fast. To be honest, I've been waiting for this application for some time :)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Uli Armbruster wrote: ...
I use many of speps' packages and they are brilliant! In case there are mistakes, he's very responsive and polite and fixes it very fast. To be honest, I've been waiting for this application for some time :)
Being another long-time user of spes' packages, I gladly confirm these observations.
David Adler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Uli Armbruster wrote: ...
I use many of speps' packages and they are brilliant! In case there are mistakes, he's very responsive and polite and fixes it very fast. To be honest, I've been waiting for this application for some time :)
Being another long-time user of spes' packages, I gladly confirm these observations.
From what I've seen, his packages look good and his replies are clear and helpful. Obviously with the shear number of packages, some of them still follow the old "|| return 1" convention, but I expect that those are gradually changed as new versions are released, so everything looks good from my point of view.
Thorsthen is your sponsor? That alone is convincing me, ahah!
More seriously, I recognise some nice packages in your list as well as your username I've seen here and there from the archives. You've done a good job so far and I'm willing to give you a chance to do even more for this community.
Good luck with your application! :]
(P.S. Any information about a PGP key?)
On 2012-04-26, at 3:20 PM, Thorsten Töpper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:26:19 +0200 speps speps@gmx.com wrote:
I postponed this task too many times in latest months.
My application is an extract of the conversations between me and my sponsor, Thorsten Töpper, after his proposal in the end of 2011.
I confirm my sponsorship, let the discussion period begin. :-)
-- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ GPG-Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
On 27 April 2012 03:26, speps speps@gmx.com wrote:
Since I'm involved into the Arch Audio project by submitting several build scripts and binary packages to its repository, I'd surely add the most popular in [community] (ex. supercollider, csound, pd, lv2 plugins), and I would help Ray Rashif maintaining the ones already there, of course.
Being an out-of-the-box pro-audio ready distro (in terms of officially distributed packages) would be great for Arch, since the number of multimedia-oriented users, developers and projects using Arch as their main platform is growing day by day (LAC 2012 has been a testimonial ;)).
Also, I would contribute adopting and maintaining orphans and of course taking care of bug reports.
I have worked with speps on a number of things and I find him to be capable and competent. If Thorsten didn't sponsor him I would have.
I also never fully figured out why we insist on "real" identities or make it difficult for people like Xyne to participate freely. In fact, I don't think we have that as a requirement. You simply need to have a key and to sign your application, so that we can verify your other prior activities and create a hypothetical profile out of them. Displaying a real identity is a bonus.
I believe our web of trust is flexible and works well. The final master key signature requires a real verified identity. The other keys are there to just show that most developers "trust" you to release packages. You may or may not verify yourself, but if you don't you won't get the last signature. It's a fair policy.
Anyway, good luck!
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
speps wrote:
I followed the whole discussion on ML, as it is of my interest, and I must admit the Xyne presence in the Arch team was always a good point for me to assert the possibility of contributing "officially" and "anonymously" at the same time, in the hope that is not just an exception.
The meaning of identity on the Internet is still something not so defined to me through its limits, consequences and abuses. So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity. This could be perceived as stupid or too paranoid for some, but for me is just a way to taste things without risking to be too much implied till the point of no return. I'm not referring to responsibilities, but to the possibility of having a choice.
The adoption of GPG Keys for signing packages intention is to prevent malicious hijacking through mirrors and to certificate their provenance, and not to identify a packager in his real life. Also, even using a "real name" is not a way to assume a real existence, since hypothetically a real life identity could be easily faked too.
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key, and I really do not see a real difference between mine and your or the one of another TU, since actually we do not personally know each others.
I like to think that a digital identity just deals with the reputation that comes from the quality of the work done like from the behaviours in social relations, and a nickname is enough to cover its identification.
This is just my point till now, not a way to convince someone else. I say "till now", cause this is the first time I was asked to reveal my real identity for being crucial in contributing or to be trusted.
Differently, some years ago Giovanni Scafora asked my name for including it as a contributor in a [extra] PKGBUILD (cpufrequtils) after sending him a patch. In that case I took the decision of keeping on my way.
I'll have to think about this since, as you say, probably another Xyne would be not allowed. My idea is, trying an application as simply "speps" and on a negative response taking the big decision. What do you think?
I agree with all of these points. An identity is an identity regardless of whether or not it's connected to the name your parents gave you. If you have shown yourself to be consistent and trustworthy through actions over a period of time, that should be enough. As you say, the introduction of PGP keys was to ensure that no one had tampered with the packages in transit, not to force TUs to divulge off-line (i.e. irrelevant) information. No one asked for real names before, let alone verified them. All that mattered was the quality and consistency of your contributions, and that's how it's supposed to be.
There are many legitimate reasons that one may wish to remain "anonymous". Some simply prefer privacy. Others may wish to avoid internet stalkers or worse.
Anyway, as mentioned, you can release packages without all 5 master signatures, but I still think it's silly that TUs don't automatically get all of the master key signatures... untrusted "Trusted Users" just doesn't make any sense. If the TU application process is not trusted, then it has to be changed, otherwise its nonsensical.
Btw, if you want real security and not just security theater, introduce a sign-off system for TUs. That would do far more than getting "real names".
On 27/04/12 06:32, Xyne wrote:
speps wrote:
I followed the whole discussion on ML, as it is of my interest, and I must admit the Xyne presence in the Arch team was always a good point for me to assert the possibility of contributing "officially" and "anonymously" at the same time, in the hope that is not just an exception.
The meaning of identity on the Internet is still something not so defined to me through its limits, consequences and abuses. So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity. This could be perceived as stupid or too paranoid for some, but for me is just a way to taste things without risking to be too much implied till the point of no return. I'm not referring to responsibilities, but to the possibility of having a choice.
The adoption of GPG Keys for signing packages intention is to prevent malicious hijacking through mirrors and to certificate their provenance, and not to identify a packager in his real life. Also, even using a "real name" is not a way to assume a real existence, since hypothetically a real life identity could be easily faked too.
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key, and I really do not see a real difference between mine and your or the one of another TU, since actually we do not personally know each others.
I like to think that a digital identity just deals with the reputation that comes from the quality of the work done like from the behaviours in social relations, and a nickname is enough to cover its identification.
This is just my point till now, not a way to convince someone else. I say "till now", cause this is the first time I was asked to reveal my real identity for being crucial in contributing or to be trusted.
Differently, some years ago Giovanni Scafora asked my name for including it as a contributor in a [extra] PKGBUILD (cpufrequtils) after sending him a patch. In that case I took the decision of keeping on my way.
I'll have to think about this since, as you say, probably another Xyne would be not allowed. My idea is, trying an application as simply "speps" and on a negative response taking the big decision. What do you think?
I agree with all of these points. An identity is an identity regardless of whether or not it's connected to the name your parents gave you. If you have shown yourself to be consistent and trustworthy through actions over a period of time, that should be enough. As you say, the introduction of PGP keys was to ensure that no one had tampered with the packages in transit, not to force TUs to divulge off-line (i.e. irrelevant) information. No one asked for real names before, let alone verified them. All that mattered was the quality and consistency of your contributions, and that's how it's supposed to be.
There are many legitimate reasons that one may wish to remain "anonymous". Some simply prefer privacy. Others may wish to avoid internet stalkers or worse.
Anyway, as mentioned, you can release packages without all 5 master signatures, but I still think it's silly that TUs don't automatically get all of the master key signatures... untrusted "Trusted Users" just doesn't make any sense. If the TU application process is not trusted, then it has to be changed, otherwise its nonsensical.
Btw, if you want real security and not just security theater, introduce a sign-off system for TUs. That would do far more than getting "real names".
I have no real issues with people being anonymous, but there is another issue here.
I signed "Xyne"s GPG key because despite not knowing anything in particular about "him", I have had plenty of interaction with him during his time as an Arch contributor. So I was quite sure that the Xyne I "knew" was the one I was signing a key for.
The user "speps" on the other hand, I have absolutely no idea who is. In fact, when I looked at their AUR packages, I was absolutely surprised at the number of them... I have never seen that name on IRC and there are only 5 posts on the forums for that account name. Looking at mail archives there are a bunch of AUR package deletion requests. I would have a lot of difficulty deciding to sign that key.
Allan
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:36:19 +1000 Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
On 27/04/12 06:32, Xyne wrote:
speps wrote:
I followed the whole discussion on ML, as it is of my interest, and I must admit the Xyne presence in the Arch team was always a good point for me to assert the possibility of contributing "officially" and "anonymously" at the same time, in the hope that is not just an exception.
The meaning of identity on the Internet is still something not so defined to me through its limits, consequences and abuses. So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity. This could be perceived as stupid or too paranoid for some, but for me is just a way to taste things without risking to be too much implied till the point of no return. I'm not referring to responsibilities, but to the possibility of having a choice.
The adoption of GPG Keys for signing packages intention is to prevent malicious hijacking through mirrors and to certificate their provenance, and not to identify a packager in his real life. Also, even using a "real name" is not a way to assume a real existence, since hypothetically a real life identity could be easily faked too.
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key, and I really do not see a real difference between mine and your or the one of another TU, since actually we do not personally know each others.
I like to think that a digital identity just deals with the reputation that comes from the quality of the work done like from the behaviours in social relations, and a nickname is enough to cover its identification.
This is just my point till now, not a way to convince someone else. I say "till now", cause this is the first time I was asked to reveal my real identity for being crucial in contributing or to be trusted.
Differently, some years ago Giovanni Scafora asked my name for including it as a contributor in a [extra] PKGBUILD (cpufrequtils) after sending him a patch. In that case I took the decision of keeping on my way.
I'll have to think about this since, as you say, probably another Xyne would be not allowed. My idea is, trying an application as simply "speps" and on a negative response taking the big decision. What do you think?
I agree with all of these points. An identity is an identity regardless of whether or not it's connected to the name your parents gave you. If you have shown yourself to be consistent and trustworthy through actions over a period of time, that should be enough. As you say, the introduction of PGP keys was to ensure that no one had tampered with the packages in transit, not to force TUs to divulge off-line (i.e. irrelevant) information. No one asked for real names before, let alone verified them. All that mattered was the quality and consistency of your contributions, and that's how it's supposed to be.
There are many legitimate reasons that one may wish to remain "anonymous". Some simply prefer privacy. Others may wish to avoid internet stalkers or worse.
Anyway, as mentioned, you can release packages without all 5 master signatures, but I still think it's silly that TUs don't automatically get all of the master key signatures... untrusted "Trusted Users" just doesn't make any sense. If the TU application process is not trusted, then it has to be changed, otherwise its nonsensical.
Btw, if you want real security and not just security theater, introduce a sign-off system for TUs. That would do far more than getting "real names".
I have no real issues with people being anonymous, but there is another issue here.
I signed "Xyne"s GPG key because despite not knowing anything in particular about "him", I have had plenty of interaction with him during his time as an Arch contributor. So I was quite sure that the Xyne I "knew" was the one I was signing a key for.
The user "speps" on the other hand, I have absolutely no idea who is. In fact, when I looked at their AUR packages, I was absolutely surprised at the number of them... I have never seen that name on IRC and there are only 5 posts on the forums for that account name. Looking at mail archives there are a bunch of AUR package deletion requests. I would have a lot of difficulty deciding to sign that key.
Allan
Hi Allan, and thanks for joining the discussion and for pointing this out, of course.
You're right, we never had a conversation before, and our tasks never crossed.
Time for sharing my views on communication platforms, though.
As you mentioned, I only posted 5 messages on Arch Forums. Well, I've never been too much familiar with forums in general, even if I found em an useful and inalienable resource.
Most of the communication related to my Arch contributions, till now, has been wonderfully covered by the AUR comments feature. Quite simple, but totally adapt for discussing about specific packages related issues, since its self-structured nature. Obviously, it also needs moderation. I systematically recommend commenters who goes OT, abuses of it starting flame-wars or just uses it wrong (eg. pasting kilo-metric logs without using a paste bin service) to follow some simple rules to let everybody live a satisfying collaboration experience. And it just mostly works.
Accordingly, that's really noisy to me discovering (moths later too), some user reporting an issue with one of the build scripts I maintain on a {un,}official Arch forum, or worse, on a Arch unrelated ML. And it just happens regularly. The few times it happened and I was still in time, I contacted the reporter for joining the related AUR page.
Briefly, I never had the need for posting on forums till now, finding it too generic and dispersive to be efficient in my regular tasks, like reporting discussing and resolving bugs.
You'll find some bug reports opened or not by me (username archspeps; at the beginning I signed to all Arch services with this nick before changing to speps; unluckily but fairly changing username for bug tracker is not allowed). There aren't many of them though, since I usually do no report bugs without investigating enough to provide a solution too, or simply they deals with upstream bugs so I go to the source. An example of bug (an old and long one) I contributed resolving both ways is about the gimp file-uri support [1].
IRC represent my main communication platform. Yeah, IRC :) In response to all OT comments I may find on one of my AUR pages, I invite the the user for contacting me on IRC (speps @ freenode.net), since {s,}he would find me on-line and active most of the times. Someone could testify.
Nevertheless, you're right. You'll rarely find me on #archlinux, since I intentionally never added it in my auto-join list. IRC channels are a great platform for discussing everything and in a immediate and efficient way. Btw, as it happens for overused and sated channels related to big projects such as a popular distribution, they may easily become a chaotic bazaar where you hardly distinguish or follow a single conversations, fancy participate. Also, being English not my first language, things becomes even more complicated, so I usually tend leaving this kind of conversations to users that are surely more quick and polished than me. Those are the reason why #archaudio or #archlinux.it are, instead, in my auto-join list.
At the same time it would be surely reasonable for me being at least present on #archlinux, so more people could easily check if I'm on-line or not. So, from now and on, I promise you'll find me on #archlinux too :)
Mailing lists are also part of my daily routine. I'm subscribed to all development related lists, following most of the threads. Trying to limit the amount of nested responses though, I participate exclusively when my comment would be heavily relevant or when it just dials with practices, like merge or delete requests. Also in such cases I collect as much packages as I can in those requests, and include thanks in advance. An example of what I intend for almost relevant is a contribution I sent last December on arch-multilib ML [2] about the jack2-multilib package.
Probably, my Arch itinerary would be harder to trace back since my synthetic contributing style and fragmentation, absolutely antithetic to my so long explanations, of course (sorry). Btw, I'm here to help you :)
Regards
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12321 [2] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-multilib/2011-December/000251.ht...
- speps -
[2012-04-26 21:26:19 +0200] speps:
So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity.
Also, your IP address is in the headers.
Anyhow, there is no anonymity debate: different master key holders verify different aspects of who you claim to be, and that is all there is to it. For instance, they may verify your email address by asking you to reply to encrypted messages, or verify your website by asking you to upload your public key there. Verifying your identity is another element that builds up confidence and reputation, even when it is not directly related to your packaging activities. The point being that we get a notion of trust a little stronger than "I never saw bad packages coming that way."
Speaking of email addresses, could you show us that you own dreamspepser@yahoo.it since it is what you used on the AUR?
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key
Could you publish that key somewhere?
Cheers.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:46:03 +0200 Gaetan Bisson bisson@archlinux.org wrote:
[2012-04-26 21:26:19 +0200] speps:
So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity.
Also, your IP address is in the headers.
Not a problem :)
Anyhow, there is no anonymity debate: different master key holders verify different aspects of who you claim to be, and that is all there is to it. For instance, they may verify your email address by asking you to reply to encrypted messages, or verify your website by asking you to upload your public key there. Verifying your identity is another element that builds up confidence and reputation, even when it is not directly related to your packaging activities. The point being that we get a notion of trust a little stronger than "I never saw bad packages coming that way."
Hi and thanks for sharing your opinions on the topic. If I didn't get it wrong, this means real name is not mandatory, but an additional point that may enforce trust for someone while it confirms relevant informations.
Speaking of email addresses, could you show us that you own dreamspepser@yahoo.it since it is what you used on the AUR?
Here I am
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key
Could you publish that key somewhere?
Sure, it is already published on the pgp.mit.edu key server http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xCF7037A4F27FB7DA
GPG-Key: 0xF27FB7DA Key fingerprint: 8840 BD07 FC24 CB7C E394 A07C CF70 37A4 F27F B7DA
Cheers.
Regards
- speps -
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:54 AM, speps dreamspepser@yahoo.it wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:46:03 +0200 Gaetan Bisson bisson@archlinux.org wrote:
[2012-04-26 21:26:19 +0200] speps:
So, from the beginning of my Internet experience, I never referenced to myself through my real name/life, but using a nickname, a digital identity.
Also, your IP address is in the headers.
Not a problem :)
Anyhow, there is no anonymity debate: different master key holders verify different aspects of who you claim to be, and that is all there is to it. For instance, they may verify your email address by asking you to reply to encrypted messages, or verify your website by asking you to upload your public key there. Verifying your identity is another element that builds up confidence and reputation, even when it is not directly related to your packaging activities. The point being that we get a notion of trust a little stronger than "I never saw bad packages coming that way."
Hi and thanks for sharing your opinions on the topic. If I didn't get it wrong, this means real name is not mandatory, but an additional point that may enforce trust for someone while it confirms relevant informations.
Speaking of email addresses, could you show us that you own dreamspepser@yahoo.it since it is what you used on the AUR?
Here I am
As you can see I sign mails with my GPG Key
Could you publish that key somewhere?
Sure, it is already published on the pgp.mit.edu key server http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xCF7037A4F27FB7DA
GPG-Key: 0xF27FB7DA Key fingerprint: 8840 BD07 FC24 CB7C E394 A07C CF70 37A4 F27F B7DA
Cheers.
Regards
- speps -
It's odd that with more than 600 packages on AUR I don't use a single one of them but that's not an issue of course :P and their quality is good.
I never had a problem revealing my real-life identity on the internet but I also don't think that it actually changes anything since, as everyone else already pointed out, I think GPG identities are already providing the necessary security requirements for Arch. Even if I met speps in the flesh, it's not like I would trust him any more than I do now just because he has a face.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Massimiliano Torromeo massimiliano.torromeo@gmail.com wrote:
I never had a problem revealing my real-life identity on the internet but I also don't think that it actually changes anything since, as everyone else already pointed out, I think GPG identities are already providing the necessary security requirements for Arch. Even if I met speps in the flesh, it's not like I would trust him any more than I do now just because he has a face.
I've been trying VERY HARD not to jump in with off-topic comments at various points in this thread, but couldn't resist just this one time...
*ahem*
That depends on the face, doesn't it?
*gets his coat*
On 04/27/2012 12:34 AM, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote:
It's odd that with more than 600 packages on AUR I don't use a single one of them but that's not an issue of course :P and their quality is good.
Be certain that all people involved with audio on ArchLinux use them. When I see a package from speps I know it's a good one. I'm sure he will improve the situation for Pro Audio and [community] ``official'' repo users.
Quality of your packages is great. If I need to prove it to someone, I can show 18 packages maintained before by Speps (15 in [community], 3 in [extra]) and 657 more in AUR. ;)
It will be pleasure to work with you again, not only on package moving, so good luck!
Hi,
five days are over, the discussion period ends and so it's time to get voting. :-)
Best Regards Thorsten
Can I vote Yes! ;)
On 2012-05-01, at 3:23 PM, Thorsten Töpper wrote:
Hi,
five days are over, the discussion period ends and so it's time to get voting. :-)
Best Regards Thorsten
-- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org