[aur-requests] [PRQ#10205] Orphan Request for telegram-desktop-bin-dev
eaburto [1] filed a orphan request for telegram-desktop-bin-dev [2]: Tried contacting the user via a comment and then created another package with a slightly changed PKGBUILD to autodetect the latest released version. Would be right for me to take over this package? Thanks! [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eaburto/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/telegram-desktop-bin-dev/
Request #10205 has been rejected by Eschwartz [1]: 1) No, the package is currently maintained and in fact just got updated. 2) Your "slightly changed PKGBUILD to autodetect the latest released version" is in violation of the AUR guidelines on account of being a duplicate, and also because autodetected latest versions are gross and *also* in violation of the guidelines. This is what VCS packages are supposed to do, via the pkgver() function -- not static tarballs scraped via API services without checksums. I've deleted your duplicate. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/
Well, there is no need to be this rude about it. The one reason I wanted a package like that is convenience, because the rate of releasing of telegram desktop is very fast and the app tells you about a new release and I wanted the last features without the need to compile from the sources. I can comprehend that it's not someone priority to update his AUR packages right away so the solution I found I thought was useful. I tried using pkgver, I'm not that dumb and tried to follow the guidelines but because I needed the variable updated before getting a source file, there was no way to use it. If I find a binary tarball source from the official website with checksums would be an acceptable solution? I mean I would need to scrap them anyway. What will you propose instead? I just wanted an alternative convenient option, but apparently you couldn't get off your high horse to explain me or help me with it. I find that your attitude is somewhat damaging the community and is not helping to get more people (obviously newbies) involved at all. Well, that's it. By the way, the AUR said that if a package was discontinued for more than 2 weeks I could send a orphan request (in this case were more like 3 or 4 weeks, and I even propose to comaintain the package; the update probably was because of the petition and that's great! but don't come to blame me about being unreasonable about it) Thanks anyway for your time and for being part of this great community project. El 1 ene. 2018 14:04, <notify@aur.archlinux.org> escribió: Request #10205 has been rejected by Eschwartz [1]: 1) No, the package is currently maintained and in fact just got updated. 2) Your "slightly changed PKGBUILD to autodetect the latest released version" is in violation of the AUR guidelines on account of being a duplicate, and also because autodetected latest versions are gross and *also* in violation of the guidelines. This is what VCS packages are supposed to do, via the pkgver() function -- not static tarballs scraped via API services without checksums. I've deleted your duplicate. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/
On 01/01/2018 01:47 PM, Emilio Aburto wrote:
Well, that's it. By the way, the AUR said that if a package was discontinued for more than 2 weeks I could send a orphan request (in this case were more like 3 or 4 weeks, and I even propose to comaintain the package; the update probably was because of the petition and that's great! but don't come to blame me about being unreasonable about it)
That's fine and no one has a problem with that. It does mean that there is no need to orphan it though. (Minor correction: two weeks is not the period of time after which you may submit an orphan request. You may submit an orphan request whenever you think the current maintainer is not responding, which is a subjective evaluation that has no real rules other than good faith. Two weeks is how long we will give the maintainer to appeal the orphan request e.g. by updating.) The issue is creating a second package whose sole purpose is to circumvent the fact that the first package didn't get updated fast enough. That is a duplicate package... Duplicate packages make me grumpy. ... Anyway, if upstream releases updates faster than the maintainer can keep an eye on them, perhaps the package would benefit from having comaintainers. I encourage you to discuss it further with the maintainer, keeping in mind they are under no obligation to do so. -- Eli Schwartz
participants (3)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Emilio Aburto
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org