[aur-general] Unexpected aur package removal.
Hi, A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination. The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov. I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now? Yichao Yu [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function. repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/ -- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
I agree, and I have already fixed it. BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is why did you simply remove the package!! You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR. It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing package right away" belong to. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
I agree, and I have already fixed it.
BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is why did you simply remove the package!! You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR.
It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing package right away" belong to.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
If you read the front page of the AUR, you will note Contributed PKGBUILDs must conform to the Arch Packaging Standards otherwise they will be deleted! https://aur.archlinux.org/ -- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
I agree, and I have already fixed it.
BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is why did you simply remove the package!! You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR.
It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing package right away" belong to.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
Also note that you didn't fix it until I replied to your inquiry about why it was deleted. And instead of taking my advice to fix it, you decided it was correct and just uploaded it again. -- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
I agree, and I have already fixed it.
BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is why did you simply remove the package!! You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR.
It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing package right away" belong to.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
Also note that you didn't fix it until I replied to your inquiry about why it was deleted. And instead of taking my advice to fix it, you decided it was correct and just uploaded it again.
No that's not true. I did uploaded it right away just because I keeped all the source package I am maintaining and just want to keep the useful and working package on AUR for anyone that may want it before spending another ~2-5 mins to fix and test it. If you want to know about the detail, I upload the first PKGBUILD which is identical to the old one right after I received the mail notification arround 20-30min after the deletion. Then I uploaded the PKGBUILD that fixed the package() issue after testing it in about 5min. After sending out the email, I uploaded the third PKGBUILD which happened to be right after your first reply to add a "provides" version.
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
What's the point of your drama? It was perfectly correct to remove it (especially if it was new package). You reuploaded and fixed it. Everyone is happy, hurray! -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski <b@bpiotrowski.pl> wrote:
What's the point of your drama? It was perfectly correct to remove it (especially if it was new package). You reuploaded and fixed it. Everyone is happy, hurray!
The title says it all. I am worrying about package being removed without following any existing TU guideline. (And a lost of 2 vote if that counts.)
-- Bartłomiej Piotrowski Arch Linux Trusted User http://archlinux.org/
OK, OK I don't think the way of interaction between you two is a smart one. May be TU's attitude is too hard, I think. Why not calm down and wait for some time? I suggest you two to discuss this topic tommorrow. May be you will find how silly you were 24 hours later..... Right? On 2013-03-13 00:51:02, Yichao Yu wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:51:02 -0400 From: Yichao Yu <yyc1992@gmail.com> To: Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com>, Yichao Yu <yyc1992@gmail.com>, "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general@archlinux.org> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Unexpected aur package removal.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
I agree, and I have already fixed it.
BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is why did you simply remove the package!! You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR.
It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing package right away" belong to.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
Also note that you didn't fix it until I replied to your inquiry about why it was deleted. And instead of taking my advice to fix it, you decided it was correct and just uploaded it again.
No that's not true. I did uploaded it right away just because I keeped all the source package I am maintaining and just want to keep the useful and working package on AUR for anyone that may want it before spending another ~2-5 mins to fix and test it.
If you want to know about the detail, I upload the first PKGBUILD which is identical to the old one right after I received the mail notification arround 20-30min after the deletion. Then I uploaded the PKGBUILD that fixed the package() issue after testing it in about 5min. After sending out the email, I uploaded the third PKGBUILD which happened to be right after your first reply to add a "provides" version.
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
-- Brock Zheng <brock.zheng@nagra.com> 郑 祎 Software Enginner Tel(office): +86 10 5912 7723 GnuPG key ID : F7A4450F GnuPg key fpr : 62DC B461 789E 84B4 8E5D 9509 5214 0A13 F7A4 450F Key Server : http://pgp.mit.edu "The information contained in this document is CONFIDENTIAL and property of OpenTV. Any unauthorized review,use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited without express written consent of OpenTV. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message and enclosed attachments." NAGRAVISION SA OpenTV 2101, Block A Floor 22, Block A Ocean International Center Ocean International Center No 56 Dongsihuanzhonglu No.56 Dongsihuanzhonglu Chaoyang District Chaoyang District Beijing 100025 Beijing 100025 People's Republic of China People's Republic of China Tel +86 10 5954 2000 Tel +86 10 5912 7700 Fax +86 10 5954 2067 Fax +86 10 5912 7800 http://www.nagra.com http://www.opentv.com/
IMWO TUs can wait 2 weeks after sending an email like all other normal people. This isn't schoolyard people, come on. cheers! mar77i
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:37:35AM +0100, Martti Kühne wrote:
IMWO TUs can wait 2 weeks after sending an email like all other normal people. This isn't schoolyard people, come on.
cheers! mar77i
If two weeks is an unwritten rule ( which makes sense IMHO, even I'm unpatient by myself ;-) ), probably this rule should be written down somewhere, so that it's obvious for all participants. Ciao, Oliver
On 03/13/2013 05:49 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi,
A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I uploaded last Nov.
I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the maintainer now?
Yichao Yu
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/ [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir should be inside the package() function.
repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/ https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your actions. please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes -- Ionuț
Hi, I'll start this off with an anecdotal story: When I first became a TU, I just gave short (but polite and friendly) notices when moving packages from AUR to [community], because I felt I was in the right to just move them at will (if they fullfilled the requirements for being moved, of course). This was only in the very beginning. After a short while I started asking AUR maintainers nicely if they were okay with it if I moved the package instead. Everyone has said yes so far. The result is the same, but it feels better to ask people and to give them a choice, for everyone involved. The rules are a great tool when needed, but (gentle?) social interaction makes the whole thing more enjoyable for everyone. When that's said, the motivation for increasing the quality of the AUR packages is a good one. There are thousands of AUR packages and just a few TUs, so if a TU should be a bit strict once in a while, while doing maintenence, bear with us. I think it's better overall. tl;dr Ioni is always right - Alexander
Ionut Biru wrote:
mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your actions.
please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes
This. Obliterating votes and comments and forcing the user to recreate the package does not help anyone, and one minute is not enough to read a comment, address the issue and re-upload the package even if the maintainer is glued to the chair slamming F5. It discourages new users from continuing to contribute and it leaves a very bad impression of the TUs and Arch by extension. Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
What's the point of your drama? It was perfectly correct to remove it (especially if it was new package). You reuploaded and fixed it. Everyone is happy, hurray!
Everyone is clearly not happy. If you honestly think that it's just "drama" when a user has a valid complaint about an overzealous TU then I think you need to reconsider your viewpoint. TUs are not beyond scrutiny. If anything we should be held to a higher standard than other users. As for my own anecdote, you will find many comments from me linking to updated PKGBUILDs that I kindly *recommend* to the maintainer. I wait a few weeks for a reply and then either post again or email the maintainer. I think it is the most effective way encourage users to adhere to packaging standards and adopt better PKGBUILD styles. Alexander Rødseth wrote:
tl;dr Ioni is always right
What alternate reality is this? :P
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +0000, Xyne wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your actions.
please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes
This.
Obliterating votes and comments and forcing the user to recreate the package does not help anyone, and one minute is not enough to read a comment, address the issue and re-upload the package even if the maintainer is glued to the chair slamming F5. It discourages new users from continuing to contribute and it leaves a very bad impression of the TUs and Arch by extension.
Did you actually read what I explained what I did? because your first sentence would cause me to believe you didn't. I specifically said I did not delete any packages that had comments on them or any substantial amount of votes. This one packages that is being complained about had 3 votes, that is 2 more than any other packages, and all of the other ones were only voted on by the maintainer.
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
What's the point of your drama? It was perfectly correct to remove it (especially if it was new package). You reuploaded and fixed it. Everyone is happy, hurray!
Everyone is clearly not happy. If you honestly think that it's just "drama" when a user has a valid complaint about an overzealous TU then I think you need to reconsider your viewpoint. TUs are not beyond scrutiny. If anything we should be held to a higher standard than other users.
The users complaint is valid. Fine, he asked for it to be merged to the new package name, and I missed it on aur-general. How about this, I would like to lodge a complaint against the TU that merged the package in the first place without checking for it's validity and following of packaging guidelines.
As for my own anecdote, you will find many comments from me linking to updated PKGBUILDs that I kindly *recommend* to the maintainer. I wait a few weeks for a reply and then either post again or email the maintainer. I think it is the most effective way encourage users to adhere to packaging standards and adopt better PKGBUILD styles.
YES ABSOLUTELY! I do this, all the time! Including on one of yours today! Right after you complained about environment variables not being quoted because they might include spaces.
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
tl;dr Ioni is always right
What alternate reality is this? :P
I have no comment
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Daniel Wallace <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +0000, Xyne wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
Well, technically, it is just ~23h from my last email but hopefully Brock.Zheng will agree to call this "one day". :P
mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your actions.
please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes
This.
Obliterating votes and comments and forcing the user to recreate the package does not help anyone, and one minute is not enough to read a comment, address the issue and re-upload the package even if the maintainer is glued to the chair slamming F5. It discourages new users from continuing to contribute and it leaves a very bad impression of the TUs and Arch by extension.
Did you actually read what I explained what I did? because your first sentence would cause me to believe you didn't. I specifically said I did not delete any packages that had comments on them or any substantial amount of votes. This one packages that is being complained about had 3 votes, that is 2 more than any other packages, and all of the other ones were only voted on by the maintainer.
Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
What's the point of your drama? It was perfectly correct to remove it (especially if it was new package). You reuploaded and fixed it. Everyone is happy, hurray!
Everyone is clearly not happy. If you honestly think that it's just "drama" when a user has a valid complaint about an overzealous TU then I think you need to reconsider your viewpoint. TUs are not beyond scrutiny. If anything we should be held to a higher standard than other users.
I was happy before this last reply since I think everyone agrees there shouldn't be immediate package removal just because the PKGBUILD is not completely following the standard as well as starts to document the case for future references, but not now since clearly someone still think he should delete the package immediately just because he doesn't want to spend less than one more minute recording it and coming back on it even one week later. I don't really think any PKGBUILD should be removed unless it is not useful anymore (replaced by other packages, drop by upstream) since AUR is a place to share useful PKGBUILD and let all users to improve them (instead of examine normal users for their packaging skills as well as reaction time). I have seen many examples on aur-general (well 2-3 at least) of packages being requested to be removed either because the package maintainer want to drop them or even don't build but all end up staying orphan in AUR because they can easily be fixed and may still be helpful to others. Another problem that may be caused by this kind of removal is the PKGBUILD may just be lost. I personally don't keep a copy of some of the PKGBUILD I am maintaining locally before I started to do that for all my PKGBUILD's one month ago. I don't think that's a requirement either. I may be wrong (maybe it is hidden in somewhere in the wiki I haven't found), but I don't think not keeping a local copy will cause any problem unless someone decide to pointlessly remove them from AUR.
The users complaint is valid. Fine, he asked for it to be merged to the new package name, and I missed it on aur-general.
How about this, I would like to lodge a complaint against the TU that merged the package in the first place without checking for it's validity and following of packaging guidelines.
Well, everyone make mistakes, but that should NOT be a excuse to discourage anyone to upload new PKGBUILD's. A TU may check for errors on PKGBUILDs before performing any actions but I don't think it is possible to check for all possible errors especially when there is no tools to do that automatically (or before pacman start to complain about it for the package() case). And there is also no reason to reject a merge if the new one is better than the old one(s). If you would REALLY like to complaint about this, may I just remind you that you have at least 5 packages on AUR with missing quote on srcdir, or is that following your own PKGBUILD standard. I am not saying they should be removed immediately but somehow I don't think that supports what you have just said very well.
As for my own anecdote, you will find many comments from me linking to updated PKGBUILDs that I kindly *recommend* to the maintainer. I wait a few weeks for a reply and then either post again or email the maintainer. I think it is the most effective way encourage users to adhere to packaging standards and adopt better PKGBUILD styles.
YES ABSOLUTELY! I do this, all the time! Including on one of yours today! Right after you complained about environment variables not being quoted because they might include spaces.
Well, see above and check yourself as well, please....
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
tl;dr Ioni is always right
What alternate reality is this? :P
I have no comment
Am I supposed to say sth about this too?...
-- Daniel Wallace Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred) Georgia Institute of Technology
On 03/14/2013 04:01 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +0000, Xyne wrote:
Ionut Biru wrote:
mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your actions.
please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes
This.
Obliterating votes and comments and forcing the user to recreate the package does not help anyone, and one minute is not enough to read a comment, address the issue and re-upload the package even if the maintainer is glued to the chair slamming F5. It discourages new users from continuing to contribute and it leaves a very bad impression of the TUs and Arch by extension.
Did you actually read what I explained what I did? because your first sentence would cause me to believe you didn't. I specifically said I did not delete any packages that had comments on them or any substantial amount of votes. This one packages that is being complained about had 3 votes, that is 2 more than any other packages, and all of the other ones were only voted on by the maintainer.
You're latching onto specific words in a sentence that might seem to support your point. The thing is, packages have been deleted for apparently trivial reasons, which is wrong; and it does not matter if the concerned package has one or 1000 votes. It inconveniences and angers users, and there's no need to hold the AUR to such strict standards. In my opinion, packages should only be deleted outright if they have malicious or illegal content, after a deletion request, or after a reasonable waiting period (of course there are always exceptions to the rule). I'm not specifically going to reply to the rest of this email because it feels more like incendiary rhetoric rather than useful discussion.
participants (10)
-
Alexander Rødseth
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Brock.Zheng
-
Daniel Wallace
-
Ionut Biru
-
Jakob Gruber
-
Martti Kühne
-
oliver
-
Xyne
-
Yichao Yu