[aur-general] Orphan Request
Hi, there I am the author of ibus-sogoupycc (http://code.google.com/p/ibus-sogoupycc/ ). These package are currently in AUR: 'ibus-sogoupycc' and 'ibus-sogoupycc-svn' and are seriously outdated, currently maintained by another person. I tried to notify that person by email, but no response for several days. Please orphan these packages, so I can maintain these packages. Links: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32200 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31920 Thanks.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, there
I am the author of ibus-sogoupycc (http://code.google.com/p/ibus-sogoupycc/ ).
These package are currently in AUR: 'ibus-sogoupycc' and 'ibus-sogoupycc-svn' and are seriously outdated, currently maintained by another person.
I tried to notify that person by email, but no response for several days.
Please orphan these packages, so I can maintain these packages.
Links: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32200 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31920
Thanks.
seriously, ibus-sogoupycc-svn 25-1 is last updated 25th of February this year? Ronald
Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently. Now it is svn-r70. AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In additional, wrong dependencies. Isn't be good for a software owner to maintain its AUR package? On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, there
I am the author of ibus-sogoupycc ( http://code.google.com/p/ibus-sogoupycc/ ).
These package are currently in AUR: 'ibus-sogoupycc' and 'ibus-sogoupycc-svn' and are seriously outdated, currently maintained by another person.
I tried to notify that person by email, but no response for several days.
Please orphan these packages, so I can maintain these packages.
Links: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32200 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31920
Thanks.
seriously, ibus-sogoupycc-svn 25-1 is last updated 25th of February this year?
Ronald
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently. Now it is svn-r70. AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In additional, wrong dependencies.
Isn't be good for a software owner to maintain its AUR package?
svn packages should update itself when running makepkg to the latest upstream version, no need to make such a change in the PKGBUILD. Also February 25th is only 4 days ago, that doesn't seem very long ago to me. Ronald
Let alone the svn package. But I have a release version 0.1.1, while ibus-sogoupycc (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31920) is still using the svn r17. Last Updated: (unknown) First Submitted: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:41:31 +0000 Is this long to you? Let alone the wrong dependencies, see the description, "bus-sogoupycc is an unoffical Sogou pinyin cloud client on ibus platform.". Miss "i" at first, it should be "ibus" Obviously an irresponsible maintainer. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently. Now it is svn-r70. AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In additional, wrong dependencies.
Isn't be good for a software owner to maintain its AUR package?
svn packages should update itself when running makepkg to the latest upstream version, no need to make such a change in the PKGBUILD. Also February 25th is only 4 days ago, that doesn't seem very long ago to me.
Ronald
On 01/03/10 10:29, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently. Now it is svn-r70. AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In additional, wrong dependencies.
unless the PKGBUILD is broken or you need anything change(except the version bump). PKGBUILDs for pkgnames ending with -svn, -git, -hg, -cvs, etc. doesn't need to be updated, because it's done automatically at build-time.
These PKGBUILDs are broken. I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake build system. I need to update the Dependencies and build script. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Nathan Wayde <kumyco@konnichi.com> wrote:
On 01/03/10 10:29, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently. Now it is svn-r70. AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In additional, wrong dependencies.
unless the PKGBUILD is broken or you need anything change(except the version bump). PKGBUILDs for pkgnames ending with -svn, -git, -hg, -cvs, etc. doesn't need to be updated, because it's done automatically at build-time.
On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
These PKGBUILDs are broken.
I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake build system.
I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you only posted yesterday a comment. If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one) -- Ionut
I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait another week. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
These PKGBUILDs are broken.
I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake build system.
I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you only posted yesterday a comment.
If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)
-- Ionut
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:03:12 +0800 "arcpp.zju@gmail.com" <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait another week.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
These PKGBUILDs are broken.
I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake build system.
I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you only posted yesterday a comment.
If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)
-- Ionut
Hello, from what I understood, arcpp.zju is the developer of this software, not (just) the creator of the PKGBUILD. If he can prove himself, he should be made owner of the package ASAP... it doesn't matter if its updated or not. If the developer wants to maintain his Arch package he should be given priority, don't you agree? Cheers
On 03/01/2010 04:14 PM, Hilton Medeiros wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:03:12 +0800 "arcpp.zju@gmail.com"<arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait another week.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru<biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
These PKGBUILDs are broken.
I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake build system.
I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you only posted yesterday a comment.
If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)
-- Ionut
Hello,
from what I understood, arcpp.zju is the developer of this software, not (just) the creator of the PKGBUILD. If he can prove himself, he should be made owner of the package ASAP... it doesn't matter if its updated or not. If the developer wants to maintain his Arch package he should be given priority, don't you agree?
Cheers
sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about giving it to him. -- Ionut
Hi TUs, Can somebody please orphan: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18049 (wt) The maintainer doesn't react. Thanks, Andreas Baumann -- Andreas Baumann Trottenstrasse 20 CH-8037 Zuerich Telefon: +41(0)76/373 01 29 E-mail: abaumann@yahoo.com Homepage: www.andreasbaumann.cc
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:05:04 +0100 Andreas Baumann <abaumann@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi TUs,
Can somebody please orphan:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18049 (wt)
The maintainer doesn't react.
Thanks,
Andreas Baumann
Done. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about giving it to him.
Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't respond within a reasonable time. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
I see. Sorry for previous messages. I will wait. On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about giving it to him.
Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't respond within a reasonable time.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:08:45 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about giving it to him.
Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't respond within a reasonable time.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be given the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script. There is no copyright lines, so it is not stealing. The author has copyrights over the software and the name of the software! Put yourself at his position, he is obviously ashamed of the quality of the build and is willing to fix it and maintain. My opinion is that this is ridiculous. My suggestion is to just disown it, and put a comment line saying "Disowned per request of the software owner". I doubt the maintainer will cry over this.
On 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be given the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script.
I concur, but it's rude for us to just barge in like that. It's a simple matter between the developer and the buildscript maintainer, so it's best left up to them to contact each other, and then if the maintainer tries anything funny (or does not try anything at all) we disown it. A 7-day or next-weekend grace period is good for things like this (for the maintainer to respond to the orphan request). I had once orphaned a package for a developer who didn't even claim it (synfig*), but it took me a while before I read and replied to the e-mail outlining a build-related matter. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:13:23 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be given the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script.
I concur, but it's rude for us to just barge in like that. It's a simple matter between the developer and the buildscript maintainer, so it's best left up to them to contact each other, and then if the maintainer tries anything funny (or does not try anything at all) we disown it.
A 7-day or next-weekend grace period is good for things like this (for the maintainer to respond to the orphan request). I had once orphaned a package for a developer who didn't even claim it (synfig*), but it took me a while before I read and replied to the e-mail outlining a build-related matter.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
I understand, just thought the process was a little too much bureaucratic for the developer. I maintain some packages and I would not feel violated by the TUs over something like this but maybe that is just me. I don't think it would be rudeness but maybe I'm really kinda rude, so my words don't count for much. :) Cheers
It is one week already. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be given the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script.
I concur, but it's rude for us to just barge in like that. It's a simple matter between the developer and the buildscript maintainer, so it's best left up to them to contact each other, and then if the maintainer tries anything funny (or does not try anything at all) we disown it.
A 7-day or next-weekend grace period is good for things like this (for the maintainer to respond to the orphan request). I had once orphaned a package for a developer who didn't even claim it (synfig*), but it took me a while before I read and replied to the e-mail outlining a build-related matter.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On 03/08/2010 06:44 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
It is one week already.
i just orphaned them. good luck -- Ionut
To prove this is easy. Project owner, which can be observed from google code project page, is me, same email address. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Hilton Medeiros <medeiros.hilton@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
from what I understood, arcpp.zju is the developer of this software, not (just) the creator of the PKGBUILD. If he can prove himself, he should be made owner of the package ASAP... it doesn't matter if its updated or not. If the developer wants to maintain his Arch package he should be given priority, don't you agree?
Cheers
On 03/03/2010 03:52 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
To prove this is easy. Project owner, which can be observed from google code project page, is me, same email address.
did you ever contacted the current maintainer by email? -- Ionut
I sent him a email on Feb 28, no response till now. As previous messages mentioned, it may be just not long enough. On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2010 03:52 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
To prove this is easy. Project owner, which can be observed from google code project page, is me, same email address.
did you ever contacted the current maintainer by email?
-- Ionut
participants (8)
-
Andreas Baumann
-
arcpp.zju＠gmail.com
-
Hilton Medeiros
-
Ionut Biru
-
Nathan Wayde
-
Ray Rashif
-
Ronald van Haren
-
Thorsten Töpper