April 2012 - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

Re: [aur-general] fixing dupekill
by Daniel Campbell 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

Hugo: thanks for pointing that out. I had asked about it on the forum and figured there was a way to work with it that way. How would I handle the fact that the tarball would have the readme and PKGBUILD in it already? Would they simply be deleted with the src directory after a 'makepkg -c'? Sent from my Nokia phone

1 0

[aur-general] Deletion request (?): libxfce4menu-devel, xfce4-notifyd-devel 0.2.1-1
by Dirk 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

I was checking XFCE related orphaned packages and found a couple I think can be deleted. libxfce4menu-devel 4.6.1-1 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20768 Flagged out of date, feb. 2011. Latest version (4.6.2) available in extra xfce4-notifyd-devel 0.2.1-1 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=43937 Out of date, latest version (0.2.2) is in extra I see a lot of package flagged out-of-date on 02 Jun 2011, is this some sort of 'marked for deletion'? Some of these seem to be up to date. e.g.: battery-applet-4-xfce4 0.9.1-1 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18086 Build depends on HAL (deprecated, but available in AUR), bu no newer version is available upstream. Dirk

3 2

[aur-general] Request for Package Removal
by Daniel Campbell 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

I uploaded a package that has the source included. The wiki mentioned binaries but nothing about languages like bash or Python that don't need to be compiled. Anyway, since I don't have a place to host it and fix the PKGBUILD, it needs to be removed so the AUR's not marred, I suppose. The package is named 'dupekill'. I uploaded it and am the current maintainer (xelados on the AUR). If you need further proof, my Github page is at https://github.com/sporkbox and should have this e-mail address as the contact address in the profile. Sorry to add to the workload. If the software supported it I wouldn't have had to bother anyone. Thanks. You guys should really give an option for people who upload packages to delete them through the same interface if, like me, they realize they screwed up. I had to subscribe to this list before I could send an e-mail to ask for someone to do something that should be possible without human involvement...

4 3

[aur-general] shotwell...
by oliver 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

Hello, shotwell is here: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/shotwell/ and it's marked out of date. And shotwell also is here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48503 Here I don't know if it's up to date... But it uses git,.. can this just be rebuilt from git, even the package itsels is old? Also it confuses me that shotwell is on http://www.archlinux.org as well as http://aur.archlinux.org Can you explain me this? And: can the package maintainers be reminded to update? Shotwell 0.12.1 is out since a whiole and maybe even a newer verison (0.13.x) is underway... Ciao, Oliver

6 12

Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
by Daniel Campbell 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Are you being glib? I achieved what I was aiming for (deleting a package). Given the reponse I got on my observation ('patches welcome'), I don't feel inclined to go through another hoop in yet another department just to be told 'no, do it yourself and we _might_ consider it'. No sense in repeating the popular opinion in another format. And if most people are happy with the bureaucracy, who am I to change it? It's not my project or my website. I carry no clout or weight among the staff. It would be a waste of time to submit a feature request for something that is clearly against the consensus. I'd have more luck forking the AUR and hacking it privately, assuming I felt passionately enough about it to spend even more time on the issue. Tldr: no, it won't achieve anything. Sent from my Nokia phone -----Original Message----- From: Karol Blazewicz Sent: 2012-04-09 17:40:55 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell(a)gmx.com> wrote: > Most systems already do the paper-trailing for us. They're known as logs. Yup. Even if regular users don't have access to said log, asking a TU once in a blue moon to check wtf is/was going on with some package is OK. Have you opened a feature request on the bugtracker for this?

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
by Daniel Campbell 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Most systems already do the paper-trailing for us. They're known as logs. ----- Original Message ----- From: Karol Blazewicz Sent: 04/09/12 04:23 PM To: dlcampbell(a)gmx.com, Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR) Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell(a)gmx.com> wrote: >> It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle for people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples everything. > Yes, it's annoying (and inefficient and illogical) to require someone to sign up to another service to ask for something to be done on the service they're having issue with. Departmentalizing things is a sign of bureaucracy. Most people dislike it in government, hospitals, business, and other institutions; why on Earth would we voluntarily do it in FOSS? Especially when the majority of problems (e.g. Deleting packages) can be solved by a machine. The 'paper trail' in bureaucracy is often used for accountability purpose. > Politics aside, I agree that a grace period would be good. But perhaps a little longer than a single day? Maybe 3-7 days, to account for real life getting in the way. You say you didn't properly test the package and you need up to a week to fix it? I guess the current system allows for such things too (albeit via a TU) so why not ...

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
by Karol Blazewicz 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <dlcampbell(a)gmx.com> wrote: >> It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle for people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples everything. > Yes, it's annoying (and inefficient and illogical) to require someone to sign up to another service to ask for something to be done on the service they're having issue with. Departmentalizing things is a sign of bureaucracy. Most people dislike it in government, hospitals, business, and other institutions; why on Earth would we voluntarily do it in FOSS? Especially when the majority of problems (e.g. Deleting packages) can be solved by a machine. The 'paper trail' in bureaucracy is often used for accountability purpose. > Politics aside, I agree that a grace period would be good. But perhaps a little longer than a single day? Maybe 3-7 days, to account for real life getting in the way. You say you didn't properly test the package and you need up to a week to fix it? I guess the current system allows for such things too (albeit via a TU) so why not ...

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
by Daniel Campbell 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Yes, it's annoying (and inefficient and illogical) to require someone to sign up to another service to ask for something to be done on the service they're having issue with. Departmentalizing things is a sign of bureaucracy. Most people dislike it in government, hospitals, business, and other institutions; why on Earth would we voluntarily do it in FOSS? Especially when the majority of problems (e.g. Deleting packages) can be solved by a machine. Politics aside, I agree that a grace period would be good. But perhaps a little longer than a single day? Maybe 3-7 days, to account for real life getting in the way. Another thing came to me as I was thinking about this issue. People that adopt an orphan package are able to upload a new src tarball, right? If so, then perhaps all that needs to be done is expanding the table to indicate which user created the package (first uploaded it) and give them permission to delete for the given grace period. I assume the required 'infrastructure' such as upload timestamps, user permissions, etc are in place already. Just an idea. Sent from my Nokia phone -----Original Message----- From: Xyne Sent: 2012-04-09 13:15:13 To: aur-general(a)archlinux.org Cc: dlcampbell(a)gmx.com Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal > It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle for people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples everything. Is it really "crippling" to send an email to this list to request deletion? Regardless, I'm not against allowing submitters to delete their own packages, but there should probably be some time limit to prevent abuse, e.g. within 24 hours of submission.

1 0

Re: [aur-general] Automated Package Removal
by Xyne 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

> It would also contribute less clutter to the mailing list and less hassle for people that make innocuous mistakes like mine. Bureaucracy cripples everything. Is it really "crippling" to send an email to this list to request deletion? Regardless, I'm not against allowing submitters to delete their own packages, but there should probably be some time limit to prevent abuse, e.g. within 24 hours of submission.

1 0

[aur-general] rednotebook package
by Dmitry Korzhevin 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

Hello, guys I am maintainer of rednotebook package in AUR: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=21984 I owned and updating this package about a year, and now i wish to maintain this package in official Community repository in Arch Linux. How can i do this, and what i need to do? Here is some of my contributions on Arch Wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&o… Also i have some packages in AUR. And subscribed to all arch linux mailing lists. My nickname in arch linux irc channels: dkorzhevin Please, give me advice -- Best regards, Dmitry Korzhevin Tel: +38 (039) 295-0000 Office Phone: +38 (044) 383-14-12 E-mail: dkorzhevin(a)lsupport.net Jabber ID: dkorzhevin(a)lsupport.net Skype: dkorzhevin URL: http://lsupport.net Linux Support LLC

2 1