Hi.
I informed the maintainer of the dpkg package yesterday via mail that his package is outdated and he should update it. I flagged the package itself as outdated, too. I haven't received an answer yet but someone removed the flag from the package. The package itself is a depency of another outdated package (debhelper). The packages can't be build because the sauce isn't on the servers anymore and the maintainer of debhelper is unable to update his PKGBUILD because of dpkg as missing dep. So I request to orphan the dpkg package in order to enable myself to update it.
Thanks and Greetings
Christian Scharkus
Am 10.02.2010 01:03, schrieb Christian Scharkus:
Hi.
I informed the maintainer of the dpkg package yesterday via mail that his package is outdated and he should update it. I flagged the package itself as outdated, too. I haven't received an answer yet but someone removed the flag from the package. The package itself is a depency of another outdated package (debhelper). The packages can't be build because the sauce isn't on the servers anymore and the maintainer of debhelper is unable to update his PKGBUILD because of dpkg as missing dep. So I request to orphan the dpkg package in order to enable myself to update it.
Thanks and Greetings
Christian Scharkus
Hello,
normally I would say that one day is too short to expect answers. But if the maintainer has the time to unflag his package, he should also have the time to drop a short remark why he did so or why he does not want to update.
So, orphaning.
Hello,
normally I would say that one day is too short to expect answers. But if the maintainer has the time to unflag his package, he should also have the time to drop a short remark why he did so or why he does not want to update.
So, orphaning.
I think anyone can unflag package out-of-date.
I guess so. That's why I wrote someone. But seriously why should anyone but the maintainer unflag an outdated package? And after all I don't stick on it if he wants it back but he was notified by comment some time ago that the package was out of date :/
2010/2/10 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkovsky@gmail.com:
Hello,
normally I would say that one day is too short to expect answers. But if the maintainer has the time to unflag his package, he should also have the time to drop a short remark why he did so or why he does not want to update.
So, orphaning.
I think anyone can unflag package out-of-date.
On 02/10/2010 09:52 PM, Christian Scharkus wrote:
I guess so. That's why I wrote someone. But seriously why should anyone but the maintainer unflag an outdated package? And after all I don't stick on it if he wants it back but he was notified by comment some time ago that the package was out of date :/
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779
the previous maintainer responded
Thus far, I've provided two responses in a forum threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779. Based on certain factors, I'm not happy about losing this package and I want to reclaim its ownership.
On 11/02/10 14:16, Chris Giles wrote:
Thus far, I've provided two responses in a forum threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779. Based on certain factors, I'm not happy about losing this package and I want to reclaim its ownership.
I looks like the source for the version 1.4.25, which you were holding it at, has not been available at the location in the PKGBUILD since 2010-01-12. The was a comment in the page on 2010-02-03 saying 1.4.28 was out. How many times was it flagged out of date and you just unflagged?
On 11 February 2010 05:16, Chris Giles chris.g.27@gmail.com wrote:
Thus far, I've provided two responses in a forum threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779. Based on certain factors, I'm not happy about losing this package and I want to reclaim its ownership.
I guess that it was caused by web browser cache. Next time try reloading page several times (or in Firefox use Ctrl + F5).
Anyway there are some users which flag package out of date for no reason (it happened to me that someone flagged my package but no new version was out, it happened especially with svn packages) so I can understand original maintainer unflagged it if he didn't saw new version.
Lukas
But several users stating there is a new version in stable and an Mail about it should get the maintainer in question start to think about it. Maybe it was just the cache especially if he's checking regular for new versions. As I wrote in the forum I have no problem with giving the package back.
2010/2/11 Lukáš Jirkovský l.jirkovsky@gmail.com:
On 11 February 2010 05:16, Chris Giles chris.g.27@gmail.com wrote:
Thus far, I've provided two responses in a forum threadhttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779. Based on certain factors, I'm not happy about losing this package and I want to reclaim its ownership.
I guess that it was caused by web browser cache. Next time try reloading page several times (or in Firefox use Ctrl + F5).
Anyway there are some users which flag package out of date for no reason (it happened to me that someone flagged my package but no new version was out, it happened especially with svn packages) so I can understand original maintainer unflagged it if he didn't saw new version.
Lukas
Sorry, I wasn't watching this tread as closely as I was this onehttp://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=90779. I'm thankful to Lukas for being able to empathise with my position. Users do have a habit of mistakenly flagging AUR packages as outdated; I thought this was the case here, after Firefox still maintained that v1.4.25 was the latest stable release.
I'm going to blame the matter on Firefox, for not invalidating my cache fast enough. If I do several 'soft' refreshes, over a period of weeks, a quality web browser should get the message that I want to see the latest version of the webpage. Since that's obviously too much to ask for, I'll just do 'hard' refreshes from now on.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org