[aur-requests] Answer to: [PRQ#10517] Orphan Request for ndi-sdk
Hi, I'm the maintainer of AUR package ndi-sdk. This package has received an orphan request in February 7, 2018 and I would like to defend myself against this orphan request. I'm not sure if this list is the right place to defend against an orphan request. I don't even know it there is a way to cancel an orphan request, so I'm writing here. I express my apologies beforehand if this is not the right place to defend against the orphan request. Please guide me to the correct place if here is not the right place for this. I totally disagree with this orphan request. According to the AUR requests page, a package should be orphaned if it needs maintainer action, or if the maintainer is MIA. Being such, I have to state some facts: 1) ndi-sdk package is _not_ out-of-date. 2) ndi-sdk package is _not_ broken. It is building and working fine. 3) I'm not missed. I'm here. The AUR user named 'pschichtel' have posted a comment on the ndi-sdk package webpage _nine_days_ ago, and I still have not answered it yet, mostly because it's just a suggestion about changes that he likes to be made on the PKGBUILD. I have not yet got the time to analyse everything, because it looks likes to be a total rewrite of the PKGBUILD. I don't even think that I should answer such posts because I, as the maintainer, don't agree with many of his proposed changes that I could gather at a quick and first look. He also have emailed me, but only now I can see that his e-mail got into the spambox, so I could still not answer yet. His e-mail is from February 3rd, 2018. Of course the PKGBUILD can be improved, like adding a 'glibc' dependency and other things. But I don't think that this should be sufficient to raise an orphan request. I don't think either that an unanswered post from _nine_days_ ago on the package webpage and an unanswered e-mail from _four_days_ ago should be sufficient for accepting an orphan request. So, I gently ask the AUR admins to reject this orphan request. Best regards, --Daniel M. Bermonde-Mail: danielbermond@yahoo.com
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:00:52PM +0000, Daniel Bermond via aur-requests wrote:
Hi, I'm the maintainer of AUR package ndi-sdk. This package has received an orphan request in February 7, 2018 and I would like to defend myself against this orphan request.
Yes, this is the correct place to answer on orphan requests. Anyway I agree with your reasoning so I've rejected the request. Alad
On 02/07/2018 11:00 AM, Daniel Bermond via aur-requests wrote:
The AUR user named 'pschichtel' have posted a comment on the ndi-sdk package webpage _nine_days_ ago, and I still have not answered it yet, mostly because it's just a suggestion about changes that he likes to be made on the PKGBUILD. I have not yet got the time to analyse everything, because it looks likes to be a total rewrite of the PKGBUILD. I don't even think that I should answer such posts because I, as the maintainer, don't agree with many of his proposed changes that I could gather at a quick and first look. He also have emailed me, but only now I can see that his e-mail got into the spambox, so I could still not answer yet. His e-mail is from February 3rd, 2018.
I too agree with your reasoning, and in some cases like the proposed change to actually running the installer.sh feel that this is totally wrong, serving no purpose except to run an obtuse script rather than extracting a tarball. Moving the headers to /usr/include/ndi-sdk does *not* make a lot of sense considering that they are extremely unlikely to clash with anything else, and moving to a subdirectory would cause the Arch Linux package to require specifying -I/usr/include/ndi-sdk for projects that need it rather than relying on the global /usr/include path. And there is no pkg-config file to standardize this... See how many repo packages have top-level headers...
Of course the PKGBUILD can be improved, like adding a 'glibc' dependency and other things. But I don't think that this should be sufficient to raise an orphan request.
glibc does not "need" to be a dependency. A majority of packages in the repos *and* the AUR require a working glibc, but we don't usually list it as a dependency. glibc is in the base group, and dozens of vital system components rely on it. If you don't have glibc installed, your system is so completely and utterly borked, that ndi-sdk will not even be noticed in the mess. ;) That being said, there is certainly no rule against adding it. I certainly wouldn't, though, just as I don't add dependencies on, say, bash. It is really up to the maintainer.
I don't think either that an unanswered post from _nine_days_ ago on the package webpage and an unanswered e-mail from _four_days_ ago should be sufficient for accepting an orphan request.
So, I gently ask the AUR admins to reject this orphan request.
Some AUR users are nudniks. Ignore them. We do...
Best regards,
-- Daniel M. Bermond e-Mail: danielbermond@yahoo.com
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
participants (3)
-
Alad Wenter
-
Daniel Bermond
-
Eli Schwartz