[aur-requests] [PRQ#8227] Orphan Request for lastpass
Eschwartz [1] filed a orphan request for lastpass [2]: this package does some things that aren't good practice, like using an install script to copy extensions to the user's home directory with inaccurate logic. (Note that Firefox supports global extensions installed in /usr/lib/firefox which is the proper way to do it, as many other packages do in both the official repos and the AUR.) The maintainer previously indicated that this was deliberate on the grounds that the user can then update things outside of pacman or root... which kind of defeats the purpose of using pacman. I don't believe Det is at all interested in doing this properly, so it would be better if someone else took over and fixed it. I would be happy to do so. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/lastpass/
Request #8227 has been accepted by kyrias [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/kyrias/
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:36 PM,
Request #8227 has been accepted by kyrias [1].
I don't understand? This issue was brought up 2 years ago, I responded then, and didn't hear a word since. This part in particular:
The maintainer previously indicated that this was deliberate on the grounds that the user can then update things outside on pacman or root... which kind of defeats the purpose of using pacman."
is complete bogus. You are not allowed to *build* the package as root, which hasn't been possible _anyway_ since Pacman 5.0, I think? I don't think I've been unresponsive either looking at the logs, so I don't understand what's the judgment in this extremely prompt disown request: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=lastpass Det
On Sun Jun 4 19:45:16 UTC 2017, Det <nimetonmaili at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun Jun 4 19:36:12 UTC 2017, <notify at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Request #8227 has been accepted by kyrias [1].
I don't understand? This issue was brought up 2 years ago, I responded then, and didn't hear a word since.
This part in particular:
The maintainer previously indicated that this was deliberate on the grounds that the user can then update things outside on pacman or root... which kind of defeats the purpose of using pacman."
is complete bogus. You are not allowed to *build* the package as root, which hasn't been possible _anyway_ since Pacman 5.0, I think?
I don't think I've been unresponsive either looking at the logs, so I don't understand what's the judgment in this extremely prompt disown request: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=lastpass
Det
Actually nevermind, kyrias should've been more careful, but this worked out pretty nicely for me. :-) Det
For the record, it works out better if you actually keep people CC'ed to this mailing list where people don't usually subscribe to every last email of any sort whatsoever. ;)
I don't understand? This issue was brought up 2 years ago, I responded then, and didn't hear a word since.
AFAIK there is no statute of limitations on complaints about the AUR, but FWIW I happened to mention this in #archlinux-classroom as an example of what not to do, and demize encouraged me to raise the issue. I had previously not pursued the point as I only needed the Firefox extension and I was using my own Firefox-only PKGBUILD...
is complete bogus. You are not allowed to *build* the package as root, which hasn't been possible _anyway_ since Pacman 5.0, I think?
Your comment is completely bogus given that that has nothing to do with anything anyone has said... but irrelevant, I doubt anyone is willing to be convinced. Moving on...
I don't think I've been unresponsive either looking at the logs, so I don't understand what's the judgment in this extremely prompt disown request: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=lastpass
And this is the bit that is probably worth noting in public. The promptness of the disown request is because demize decided that there is no two-week waiting period for someone who has a history of being argumentative in a way that isn't constructive, who already knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it (and lack of interest on my part in pursuing that is neither here nor there), and perhaps most importantly, for a package that modifies the homedir which is just completely unacceptable. Please do not confuse "I have been responsive about updating the package according to my opinions of how it should be updated" with "I have been prompt about absorbing the advice given regarding the correct and the incorrect ways of doing things as a matter of policy and good practice". Whether demize should or shouldn't have given you a chance to argue the case after the orphan request... I don't know, don't care, don't feel inclined to argue about it. That was the reasoning though, and the lesson to be learned here is that ideally the AUR will contain *quality* PKGBUILDs, not just PKGBUILDs for the sake of PKGBUILDs. ... tl;dr demize wanted me to take over, and had me file an orphan request to leave a permanent record of what happened. (Your near-instantaneous re-adoption within seconds of it being orphaned, was kind of funny from that perspective.) -- Eli Schwartz
On Mon Jun 5 19:13:14 UTC 2017, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz93 at gmail.com > wrote:
For the record
[...]
Eli Schwartz
Hey, as mentioned, good luck. :-) Det
participants (3)
-
Det
-
Eli Schwartz
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org