Should we update the Trusted User Bylaws page [1]? There are some mentions to the old "tur-users", for example.
I can do the update if you guys think that it is needed.
Thanks.
[1] http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/TUbylaws.html
On 5/21/08, Hugo Doria hugodoria@gmail.com wrote:
Should we update the Trusted User Bylaws page [1]? There are some mentions to the old "tur-users", for example.
I can do the update if you guys think that it is needed.
Thanks.
[1] http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/TUbylaws.html
-- Hugo Doria http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org
yes please do so, see the following messages on the mailing list:
1. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-May/007655.html 2. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-May/007718.html
Ronald
Ouch! Seens that i have missed those threads.
Anyway, i updated the TUBylaws page. The new page can be found here:
http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org/TUbylaws.html
Changelog:
* Replaced all "tur-users" entries for "aur-general" * All aur-general entries are now linked to the ML page * Updated the the fourth section of the standard voting procedure
Please, take a look at the new page and let me know if there is something wrong or missing.
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:11:52 -0300 "Hugo Doria" hugodoria@gmail.com wrote:
Ouch! Seens that i have missed those threads.
Anyway, i updated the TUBylaws page. The new page can be found here:
http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org/TUbylaws.html
Changelog:
- Replaced all "tur-users" entries for "aur-general"
- All aur-general entries are now linked to the ML page
- Updated the the fourth section of the standard voting procedure
Please, take a look at the new page and let me know if there is something wrong or missing.
Should we vote these modifications?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM, JJDaNiMoTh jjdanimoth@gmail.com wrote:
Should we vote these modifications?
According to the current bylaws, we have to (and the version should be changed from 1.0 to something else as well.)
I was in favor of voting for it (that's why I started that previous thread in the first place) and already started a discussion period (which is already ended). Then we started having a vote on the AUR and nobody objected. So I asked in my last mail in that thread if a voting is still needed because we already didn't follow the bylayws by voting via the forum, but nobody responded to that question.
Well, I can start the vote directly as the discussion period has already ended if you guys really want to vote. Let me know if I have to start a vote.
On 5/21/08, Abhishek Dasgupta abhidg@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:03 PM, JJDaNiMoTh jjdanimoth@gmail.com wrote:
Should we vote these modifications?
According to the current bylaws, we have to (and the version should be changed from 1.0 to something else as well.)
-- Abhishek Dasgupta
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Hugo Doria wrote:
Ouch! Seens that i have missed those threads.
Anyway, i updated the TUBylaws page. The new page can be found here:
http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org/TUbylaws.html
Changelog:
- Replaced all "tur-users" entries for "aur-general"
- All aur-general entries are now linked to the ML page
- Updated the the fourth section of the standard voting procedure
Please, take a look at the new page and let me know if there is something wrong or missing.
After agreeing on the changes, you should ask Simo to change his page. No need to make things more confused by creating a new page.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Eric Belanger belanger@astro.umontreal.ca wrote:
After agreeing on the changes, you should ask Simo to change his page. No need to make things more confused by creating a new page.
I just made this page to test the new ByLaws. Now we need to see if everything is ok and vote. After that i will change the version, mail Simo and send him the changes.
Ronald, please, start the voting period.
Hi TUs
This mail starts the 7 day voting period for the amendment of the bylaws to
1. change all appearances of tur-users to aur-general
2. the fourth section of the standard voting procedure to (at least similar to) ####################################### Following the discussion period, a voting period opens. Simple YES, NO , or ABSTAIN votes are to be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage by at least a quorum of active TUs. ######################################
for the complete/correct text see the voting pages itself ;) I also linked Hugos new bylaws document there.
The original discussion started here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-May/007655.html though there have been some more discussion as you may have seen.
I hope you don't mind I did this on the AUR trusted users page but it makes it easier for me to count 2 votes for each of you. Remember we need 75% of TUs to vote on this one.
Happy voting!
Ronald
On 5/21/08, Ronald van Haren pressh@gmail.com wrote:
Hi TUs
This mail starts the 7 day voting period for the amendment of the bylaws to
change all appearances of tur-users to aur-general
the fourth section of the standard voting procedure to (at least similar to)
####################################### Following the discussion period, a voting period opens. Simple YES, NO , or ABSTAIN votes are to be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage by at least a quorum of active TUs. ######################################
for the complete/correct text see the voting pages itself ;) I also linked Hugos new bylaws document there.
The original discussion started here:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-May/007655.html
though there have been some more discussion as you may have seen.
I hope you don't mind I did this on the AUR trusted users page but it makes it easier for me to count 2 votes for each of you. Remember we need 75% of TUs to vote on this one.
Happy voting!
Ronald
Just a reminder there is little over 1 day left to vote. Please be more active or we will not reach the quorum.
thank you
Hi,
I write a script in python that check dependencies for a PKGBUILD or a program. The script check if the dependencies are already include by another dependency.
Exemple for the package gajim :
$ yaourt -Si gajim | grep depends Depends On : gtkspell sqlite3 dnsutils pygtk libxss python>=2.5 $ archdep.py -p gajim python is already include by pygtk
$ archdep.py --help Usage: archdep.py [options]
Options: -h, --help show this help message and exit -g, --draw Draw the dependence's tree -p, --program Calcul optional dependences for a program and not a PKGBUILD -r, --request Question the remote database (pacman -Si), default is local (pacman -Qi) -d, --debug Add debug messages
This work fine for programs use python (or any script language) contrary to namcap. I attach a PKGBUILD for test this script and a png of tree of dependenies of gajim create with option --draw.
Clément DEMOULINS
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I write a script in python that check dependencies for a PKGBUILD or a program. The script check if the dependencies are already include by another dependency.
Exemple for the package gajim :
$ yaourt -Si gajim | grep depends Depends On : gtkspell sqlite3 dnsutils pygtk libxss python>=2.5 $ archdep.py -p gajim python is already include by pygtk
$ archdep.py --help Usage: archdep.py [options]
Options: -h, --help show this help message and exit -g, --draw Draw the dependence's tree -p, --program Calcul optional dependences for a program and not a PKGBUILD -r, --request Question the remote database (pacman -Si), default is local (pacman -Qi) -d, --debug Add debug messages
This work fine for programs use python (or any script language) contrary to namcap. I attach a PKGBUILD for test this script and a png of tree of dependenies of gajim create with option --draw.
Clément DEMOULINS
This is a really cool program! I especially like the graph output.
Thanks,
Wow you're a very thorough man. It looks like you've put a lot of work into it, and actually this is something that could fit inside namcap too.
I write a script in python that check dependencies for a PKGBUILD or a program. The script check if the dependencies are already include by another dependency.
Very nice work! I'll have to make time to fool around with this more myself, but it looks extremely well thought out...
-- Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer
On 27/05/2008, at 4:53 PM, Clément DEMOULINS wrote:
Hi,
I write a script in python that check dependencies for a PKGBUILD or a program. The script check if the dependencies are already include by another dependency.
Exemple for the package gajim :
$ yaourt -Si gajim | grep depends Depends On : gtkspell sqlite3 dnsutils pygtk libxss python>=2.5 $ archdep.py -p gajim python is already include by pygtk
$ archdep.py --help Usage: archdep.py [options]
Options: -h, --help show this help message and exit -g, --draw Draw the dependence's tree -p, --program Calcul optional dependences for a program and not a PKGBUILD -r, --request Question the remote database (pacman -Si), default is local (pacman -Qi) -d, --debug Add debug messages
This work fine for programs use python (or any script language) contrary to namcap. I attach a PKGBUILD for test this script and a png of tree of dependenies of gajim create with option --draw.
Clément DEMOULINS <PKGBUILD><gajim.png>
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
I'll tell you that I would accept patches that did this ;)
Jason
Le Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:23:08 -0700, "Jason Chu" jason@archlinux.org a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
I'll tell you that I would accept patches that did this ;)
Jason
I will watch the code of namcap and see if it's possible when i could.
Clément
On 6/26/08, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Le Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:23:08 -0700, "Jason Chu" jason@archlinux.org a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
I'll tell you that I would accept patches that did this ;)
Jason
I will watch the code of namcap and see if it's possible when i could.
Clément
Do you still plan to do this and if not do you mind sharing your script so I can take a look?
Ronald
Le Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:09:30 +0200, "Ronald van Haren" pressh@gmail.com a écrit :
On 6/26/08, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Le Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:23:08 -0700, "Jason Chu" jason@archlinux.org a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
I'll tell you that I would accept patches that did this ;)
Jason
I will watch the code of namcap and see if it's possible when i could.
Clément
Do you still plan to do this and if not do you mind sharing your script so I can take a look?
Ronald
I attach a PKGBUILD for install my script in my first message (i rejoin in this message). At this time, i too busy to work to integrate in namcap.
Clément
thank you. Sorry for not seeing to obvious :p
I'll look into it in the next couple of weeks and see what I can do.
Ronald
On 8/11/08, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Le Fri, 8 Aug 2008 20:09:30 +0200, "Ronald van Haren" pressh@gmail.com a écrit :
On 6/26/08, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Le Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:23:08 -0700, "Jason Chu" jason@archlinux.org a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Clément DEMOULINS cdemoulins@gmail.com wrote:
Does namcap not do this? If not it might be a good idea to merge the two scripts.
namcap use ldd for check uses libraries and ldd work only for binaries not scripts. My script generate complete graph of dependencies and check if a dependency is not already include by another.
Merge namcap and my script ? Why not, if i time.
I'll tell you that I would accept patches that did this ;)
Jason
I will watch the code of namcap and see if it's possible when i could.
Clément
Do you still plan to do this and if not do you mind sharing your script so I can take a look?
Ronald
I attach a PKGBUILD for install my script in my first message (i rejoin in this message). At this time, i too busy to work to integrate in namcap.
Clément
The voting period has ended. The results are as follows:
- change all appearances of tur-users to aur-general
21 YES; 0 NO; 0 ABSTAIN
- the fourth section of the standard voting procedure to (at least similar to)....
20 YES; 0 NO; 1 ABSTAIN
This means the amendments will be changed according to the voting subjects, and voting will from now on happen officially via the AUR interface.
Hugo, can you send Simo either your version of the bylayws, or a patch against the current bylayws so I don't have to duplicate your work?
Thank you
Ronald
This means the amendments will be changed according to the voting subjects, and voting will from now on happen officially via the AUR interface.
Thats great!
Hugo, can you send Simo either your version of the bylayws, or a patch against the current bylayws so I don't have to duplicate your work?
Done! =)
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org
