[aur-general] Can we force the maintainer to change package name?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?&K=rstudio A few users suggested name change.
Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?&K=rstudio A few users suggested name change.
I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio.
Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?&K=rstudio A few users suggested name change.
I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio.
I'm guilty of not reading the package description too: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1361971#p1361971
Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful.
I can e-mail the maintainer and we can wait the customary 2 weeks, but what exactly should I tell him? He did provide a description, so maybe uploading an r-studio package using the PKGBUILD provided by gbc921 would be enough?
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On 20 December 2013 06:42, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely different than every other 'rstudio' package https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?&K=rstudio A few users suggested name change.
I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio.
I'm guilty of not reading the package description too: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1361971#p1361971
Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful.
I can e-mail the maintainer and we can wait the customary 2 weeks, but what exactly should I tell him? He did provide a description, so maybe uploading an r-studio package using the PKGBUILD provided by gbc921 would be enough?
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
The maintainer has taken no action and didn't respond to my e-mail.
On 12 January 2014 23:42, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
The maintainer has taken no action and didn't respond to my e-mail.
Deleted the package. I have it backed up, will keep for several weeks in case someone really wants it reuploaded.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On 12 January 2014 23:42, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
The maintainer has taken no action and didn't respond to my e-mail.
Did your e-mail actually get through to that address? It's being returned here, and if we'd known this before we could've just gone ahead and done what we wanted. An non-existent e-mail address is close to meaning a non-existent user.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
On 12 January 2014 23:42, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz karol.blazewicz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky l.jirkovsky@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman schiv@archlinux.org wrote:
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one, there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD with the suggested changes.
The question is whether the maintainer is still active at all. Hist last action is 2012-08-27 and he has only two packages, both over the year old with one being flagged out of date since February.
Lukas
e-mail sent. If he doesn't respond in two weeks, maybe a TU can reupload and disown it, or remove it from the AUR altogether, whichever is deemed the correct action.
The maintainer has taken no action and didn't respond to my e-mail.
Did your e-mail actually get through to that address? It's being returned here, and if we'd known this before we could've just gone ahead and done what we wanted. An non-existent e-mail address is close to meaning a non-existent user.
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
It wasn't returned. I e-mailed him and got no response, neither automated nor personal, no error, nothing.
participants (3)
-
Karol Blazewicz
-
Lukas Jirkovsky
-
Rashif Ray Rahman