[aur-requests] [PRQ#14563] Merge Request for onedrive
Varakh [1] filed a request to merge onedrive [2] into onedrive- abraunegg [3]: The onedrive package itself is working fine but upstream has not committed anything for a very long time and is actively NOT responding to issues. There's a fork available (packaged into onedrive-abraunegg) which is actively developed and contains tons of bug fixes required for daily production. As the current maintainer of the onedrive package is not willing to hand over it, adapt the package to the fork, I'd propose to force move the package or force delete it so that the current maintainer of e.g. onedrive-abraunegg can take over. I think we, as an Arch community, should not confuse new users and prefer working forks (and therefore rename it). There's also a discussion going on in the comment sections of each AUR package. Cheers Varakh [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Varakh/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive-abraunegg/
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:52:52 +0000 (UTC) notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Varakh [1] filed a request to merge onedrive [2] into onedrive- abraunegg [3]:
The onedrive package itself is working fine but upstream has not committed anything for a very long time and is actively NOT responding to issues.
There's a fork available (packaged into onedrive-abraunegg) which is actively developed and contains tons of bug fixes required for daily production.
As the current maintainer of the onedrive package is not willing to hand over it, adapt the package to the fork, I'd propose to force move the package or force delete it so that the current maintainer of e.g. onedrive-abraunegg can take over. I think we, as an Arch community, should not confuse new users and prefer working forks (and therefore rename it).
There's also a discussion going on in the comment sections of each AUR package.
Cheers Varakh
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Varakh/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive-abraunegg/
The original upstream IS sporadically active, and instead of making a proper fork, abraunegg has just declared himself the new upstream of the project. If people have a problem with the naming, they should take it up with abraunegg to do things correctly.
I need to disagree here. I don't get the point why you keep supporting the original author who hasn't fixed anything in a long time just for the sake of a name which would help AUR users to install the software with less and not more bugs. Shouldn't we focus on the easiest solution for AUR users? I think it's easier for most of us to just install the first obvious match, namely 'onedrive'.
From my point of view 'sporadically active' is way too friendly. The last release and commit was in September, there are 12 open pull requests and over 70 issues. I think it doesn't matter how abraunegg decides or if he has secretly "claimed upstream" when he's the only one responding to issues or PR. He's actively developing it, fixes bugs and his fork is way more production-ready than anything else. Instead of blaming him, we should be grateful that he took over and tries to rescue a nearly dead project which helps out all users which need this functionality.
On 03.04.19 14:56, Doug Newgard wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:52:52 +0000 (UTC) notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Varakh [1] filed a request to merge onedrive [2] into onedrive- abraunegg [3]:
The onedrive package itself is working fine but upstream has not committed anything for a very long time and is actively NOT responding to issues.
There's a fork available (packaged into onedrive-abraunegg) which is actively developed and contains tons of bug fixes required for daily production.
As the current maintainer of the onedrive package is not willing to hand over it, adapt the package to the fork, I'd propose to force move the package or force delete it so that the current maintainer of e.g. onedrive-abraunegg can take over. I think we, as an Arch community, should not confuse new users and prefer working forks (and therefore rename it).
There's also a discussion going on in the comment sections of each AUR package.
Cheers Varakh
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Varakh/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onedrive-abraunegg/
The original upstream IS sporadically active, and instead of making a proper fork, abraunegg has just declared himself the new upstream of the project. If people have a problem with the naming, they should take it up with abraunegg to do things correctly.
Request #14563 has been rejected by polyzen [1]:
The last release and commit was in September, there are 12 open pull requests and over 70 issues.
Completely normal. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/polyzen/
Could you explain how this benefits the AUR users to have an unmaintained project as 'reasonable default'? It's just about the name here, no big changes. I don't see how "completely normal" counts as an argument at all. At least not when I gave some reasons why this request would be beneficial which you seem to have ignored entirely. On 04.04.19 02:24, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Request #14563 has been rejected by polyzen [1]:
The last release and commit was in September, there are 12 open pull requests and over 70 issues.
Completely normal.
participants (3)
-
Doug Newgard
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
Varakh