---------- Forwarded message --------- Da: Pellegrino Prevete Date: mar 4 lug 2023 alle ore 19:56 Subject: Re: vte-git, vte-common and toxic trolls To: Robin Candau Il giorno mar 4 lug 2023 alle ore 08:30 Robin Candau ha scritto:

Le 04/07/2023 à 03:30, Pellegrino Prevete a écrit :

Hello,

Hi,

upstream ('extra' repo), at some point the vte3 package has been split into vte-common, vte3 and vte4. vte3 and vte4 do not conflict and they both depend on vte-common.

On the aur, the vte3-git package was recently orphaned and was adopted by that absurd guy I had the misfortune to interact with a couple months ago already.

You know, the one who has kept its obscene insults towards me online in that package comments without any shame.

So, this person hoards both vte3-git and vte4-git and keeps them conflicting.

I've reviewed every comments of the vte3-git and vte4-git AUR package and I couldn't find the "obscene insults" you're referring to. If you have legit evidence of such obscene insults, please provide them so we can act accordingly.

This happened in sushi-git. He has far deleted the original comment but it can still be read in a following message. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sushi-git?O=0#comment-913784 The same trusted user (gromit) who is letting him keep his conflicting package, also accepted his orphan request and gave him the package a day after I upgraded it. In general I'd like to say it's really frustrating people on the AUR isn't usually easily aware of the work other users are currently doing on the repository. I am sure xiota would have been way less angry if he could have justified his wait on his own by looking at what I was doing meanwhile.

Now a couple days ago even a trusted user intervened erroneously; I assume he didn't pay much attention to dates or changes upstream.

That trusted user didn't intervened erroneously. Merging vte{3,4}-git into vte-git will actually break the latter as vte-git depends on both of them [1] [2].

I am the author of vte-git, so what you say doesn't make sense. vte-git is a package I made to show good will to xiota in correctly splitting the package and it's "broken" because I also sent him patches to apply to make his package non-conflicting (vte3-git shouldn't conflict with vte4-git) and I was waiting for him to apply them; they are in the comments. But at this point I don't think it's useful to discuss it further, so I am gonna adopt the following structure for vte-git to overcome this issue entirely: pkgbase: vte-git pkgname: vte-git -> provides vte4-git, vte4 -> depends on vte-common-git pkgname: vtethree-git -> provides vte3-git, vte3 -> depends on vte-common-git

That and the fact that the latest merge request you made for vte4-git [3] claims "[...] also maintainership won't be lost with merge." makes me think that you don't know how merge requests actually works [4].

What's happening bothers me to the point I think I'd like to ask two of you to act as trustees for a TU election round.

So you basically want to apply as a TU for the sole purpose of having "enough power" to solve this personal war yourself?

No, I want to apply as TU because I find absurd it is possible for a random user to: - insult me - take a package from me after it with the permission of a TU - adopt a dependency I need to upgrade a package - refusing to upgrade it - reporting and making look like my packages were not working instead all of this without anyone ever referring the patches I sent him, no one saying what the issue is, and overall making me lose a lot of time, so that I have to republish the package entirely to just have a change from upstream brought to the aur.

I don't think "being bothered enough by this to the point you'd like to apply as a TU" on its own is a legit reason that will get two of us to consider a sponsoring.

Clearly it's not the main reason to sponsor me for being a TU.

I maintain around 700 packages and I will maintain way more very soon.

There's no competition here. Maintaining a lot of packages doesn't give you more "power" or "legitimacy" than another.

Maintaining many (widely used) packages is indeed a great power which gives legitimacy to the one who bears it, because it can be assumed there would be people who would be damaged from a sudden, huge, rogue upgrade. It's more difficult you come to expect that from someone who maintains many packages, works with his real identity and works with many projects. You easily expect that from an contributor you never his name before.

Please, maintain packages you have the time and interest to maintain, not just for the sake of having "way more very soon".

I am gonna maintain way more packages because I want arch users to enjoy way more packages. I do what I do just because no one else is doing it and I want it sooner.

To be honest, it's disappointing how this whole story turned into a personal war at the expense of the legitimacy of the requests.

Actually I still don't understand what's the issue in doing as upstream, which is what I am proposing from the beginning.

Submitting orphan requests for *poor* reasons like "This person shouldn't maintain this package" without any additional details [5] [6] is not what orphan requests are for and are a waste of time for moderators that treat them.

This person shouldn't maintain this package because he complains about inexistent issues and apparently he wants users to keep building the same software two times.

I'd like *both you and xiota* to behave correctly by dropping this personal war behind and by submitting legitimately motivated requests.

After he insulted me and adopted this toxic behaviour I gave him an hand by preparing for him the vte-git package and the relative packages for him to merge to make everything compatible even if it didn't want to have a single pkgbase. I am still complaining about this user because at this point because no one has really justified the decision of why it should be okay to keep vte3-git and vte4-git overlapping and conflicting.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=vte-git#n137 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=vte-git#n138 [3] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... [4] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Merge [5] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... [6] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t...

-- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz