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 wrote:

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM, 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These package are currently in AUR: 'ibus-sogoupycc' and 'ibus-sogoupycc-svn' and are seriously outdated, currently maintained by another person.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

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 wrote:

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM, 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

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 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.

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 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 03/01/2010 04:14 PM, Hilton Medeiros wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:03:12 +0800 "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 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

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:05:04 +0100 Andreas Baumann 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

I see. Sorry for previous messages. I will wait. On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru 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 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros 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

It is one week already. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 03/03/2010, Hilton Medeiros 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

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 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

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 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