On 10/19/06, VMiklos vmiklos@frugalware.org wrote:

hi

i've split up the patch to 3 parts for easier reviewing:

the feature itself: http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=pacman;a=commit;h=200610...

indentation fixup: http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=pacman;a=commit;h=200610...

documentation: http://darcs.frugalware.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=pacman;a=commit;h=200610...

Hah! Until I actually read the docs, i was reading this as "matrixes" and was REAL confused

It's a longer patch, and don't have the time to verify it from work. I'll check when I get home.

On 12/5/06, VMiklos vmiklos@frugalware.org wrote:

could you please merge it?

The patch is no longer valid. Please provide a valid patch.

pacman-ng doesn't sound like a fair name. seems to imply that pacman is depreciated. Just my $0.02.

On 12/6/06, VMiklos vmiklos@frugalware.org wrote:

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:56:16PM -0600, Aaron Griffin < aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The patch is no longer valid. Please provide a valid patch.

Sorry but I won't.

Quoting the current state of http://wiki.frugalware.org/Pacman-ng:

,,Pacman-ng is a fork of the not-yet-released cvs version of the complete rewrite of pacman by Aurelien Foret (the old monolithic pacman is written by Judd Vinet).

So it provides a library interface to create realy frontends (not just wrappers) to this great package management tool.

This fork has the following goals:

1. It provides a stable API.
2. It has a stable release in every 2 months (at least).
3. We _are_ interested in contributors' patches.

This is guaranteed as we already has a patch queue for almost a year with the same goals, just finally we lost our motivation to submit patches to the cvs.

Pacman has been forked because Aaron Griffin, the current "maintainer" of pacman3:

1. requested to do so.
2. always says there will be a pre-release soon, but there isn't any for more than half of the year.
3. likes cosmetics changes even with changing the API so developing frontends are almost impossible.
4. regularly ignores contributors' patches, then after he did his own changes, then requires _you_ to port your patch to the changed api, so it really does not worth submitting patches to him.

We plan to pull functional changes from the cvs regularly. Till the current destructive approach does not change, we do not plan to submit patches to him. The queue is too long already, he has some stuff already to merge. (Unfortunately probably he won't.)

Of course this does not means that we hate the other contributors of pacman or Archlinux, we have a problem with the current "development" model of pacman-cvs. We are interested in any co-operation if the current approach changes.

The current patch queue can be found at:

http://ftp.frugalware.org/pub/other/pacman/

The next release will have the "pacman-ng" name instead of the "pacman" one, so that users won't be confused.

If you are interested in developing pacman-ng, please subscribe to the frugalware-devel@frugalware.org mailing list.''

udv / greetings, VMiklos

-- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org

---

pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev

Hi!

I really don't want to flame here. I really appreciate your contributions to Pacman development. While it may look so, don't think that I'm in aggressive position here. Just wanted to say my opinion on some statements, which are, IMHO not correct or not fair.

2006/12/6, VMiklos vmiklos@frugalware.org:

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:56:16PM -0600, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:

...

The patch is no longer valid. Please provide a valid patch.

Sorry but I won't.

I understand that you don't care much about CVS branch. So it's your right.

This fork has the following goals:

1. It provides a stable API.

So I suppose pacman and fwpacman will have incompatible API in future. :-/

2. It has a stable release in every 2 months (at least).
3. We _are_ interested in contributors' patches.

I don't fully understand 3rd point. I haven't noticed that Aaron is _not_ interested in contributors' patches, so don't see a reason for emphasizing on this. :-/

This is guaranteed as we already has a patch queue for almost a year with the same goals, just finally we lost our motivation to submit patches to the cvs.

Pacman has been forked because Aaron Griffin, the current "maintainer" of pacman3:

1. requested to do so.

Because he felt that your branch was fork already. I mostly agree with him.

2. always says there will be a pre-release soon, but there isn't any for

more than half of the year.

This depends on his free time. He is dealing with the new installer too (I don't count package maintaining at all). And he is is only one person doing this (oh, and Tobias is improving old installer and developing mkbootcd). I'm sure you remember that he did nice work with porting libfetch to Linux and replacing libftp with libdownload in libalpm. That's not just cosmethic fixes, agree?

3. likes cosmetics changes even with changing the API so developing

frontends are almost impossible.

Honestly, I don't think that small cosmetic changes make developing frontends "almost impossible".

4. regularly ignores contributors' patches, then after he did his own

changes, then requires _you_ to port your patch to the changed api, so it really does not worth submitting patches to him.

Even kernel devs do this. :-p Seriously, that's more like personal things, so I don't want to comment on this, instead of Aaron.

We plan to pull functional changes from the cvs regularly. Till the current destructive approach does not change, we do not plan to submit patches to him. The queue is too long already, he has some stuff already to merge. (Unfortunately probably he won't.)

This is blackmail! ;-) (until ... we ...) Don't you think so? ;-) I suppose we can poll your changes freely too, directly from darcs repo. Posting patches here is/was more like notification anyway.

Of course this does not means that we hate the other contributors of pacman or Archlinux, we have a problem with the current "development" model of pacman-cvs. We are interested in any co-operation if the current approach changes.

This is blackmail, really. ;-)

IMHO you are blaming Aaron for everything, and too much. Honestly, I thinks that's simply not fair. But you don't talk that some problems were created by you, like those copyright/authorship issues, that are still not resolved properly IMHO. And in that case your messages contained some blackmail stuff too (that's how I saw this).

The next release will have the "pacman-ng" name instead of the "pacman" one, so that users won't be confused.

IMHO it would be better to call it fwpacman. Because there's not much "ng" things in it, comparing to CVS. And things may change in future. ;-) + I always thought that fwpacman was more popular name :-/

IMHO all those Arch Linux vs. Frugalware talks are a bit childish... And blaming only one side is not fair. That's how I see all this. And I'm sad because of all those issues. Of course you may just ignore my message and think that I'm trying to only defence Aaron and blame FW devs. IMO I've tried to be objective in all my messages regarding ALvsFW Pacman issues.

I really hope that things will get better. But this blackmailing behaviour, this "let you do that first then we will be happy to cooperate" is not a step forward for better cooperation, don't you think so?

I would like to hear Aaron's opinion on this too.

On 12/6/06, Christian Hamar alias krix krics@gds.hu wrote:

"Go and f.ck yourself"

This is ridiculous. The previous email from VMiklos was riddled with libel and immaturity. I am not going to respond to that with "OK! Great!". And now you too?

This speaks alot of frugalware as a whole.

For anyone else on this list that is troubled by this, I apologize for the immaturity of the situation.

If you guys would like to speak in a civilized manner, we can do that, but I am going to be deleting any emails that contain childish banter such as "go fuck yourself".