[arch-general] Someone shoot sergej

[Allan McRae]

Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>> 3) The number of packages he maintains NEVER drops.
>>> I remember he had 660 a while back now its 686. And he has added 2
>>> packages since
>>> yesterday evening.
>>>
>>>       
>> This is not true, I can and I drop packages sometime, but I think home page
>> downtime or even stopping developing is not the reason to remove package
>> while it works.
>>
>>
>> Please give me list of packages that need fixing.
>>
>>     
>
> Sure, i am not saying that every single application whose website is
> down, or its not
> developed anymore doesnt belong in [community] either.
> But you know what i get from the way you behave?
> That your moto is:  If it works it should be in [community]. Which is
> totally wrong.
> That every single application you have EVER built from unsupported,
> you moved to community.
> Or close enough.
> So the million dollar questions are: Do you use all  686 packages?
> Does anyone else does?
> Do you think its appropriate to provide all those applications as
> binary for 2-3 people?
> Can you build em for x86_64 too since noone else cares to? (Havent
> checked this TBH)
>
> IMO ~500 of you packages belong to unsupported. Many of which dont
> belong anywhere.
>
>   
>> Yes, I can not check ~670 packages periodically, but I have time to fix all
>> problems and update it.
>>
>>     
>
> That certifies what i am saying. Especially when it comes to making
> [community] official.
> Binary packages shouldnt be unofficial like [community] is today. If
> someone wants to maintain
> his own repo, he should get some hosting and do whtever he wants
> there. Add it to the list of
> unofficial mirrors on the wiki. Link from the AUR homepage to the wiki page.
> Example: There are many applications in AUR that depend on kdelibs.
> But they actually
> depend on kdelibs3. Noone bothers to report it, cause the binary
> works. The developers have built
> all the packages from extra to reflect that. The [community] package
> is never rebuilt.
> But thats not a problem right? The package works. WRONG. ABS doesnt
> work. And its your job to change it.
> But wait, you cant, you maintain 700 applications..
>
> If you look at the statistics on archlinux.de you will see that 56% of
> the people who have submitted
> stats use yaourt. Package making in Archlinux is a piece of cake.
> There is absolutely NO REASON
> having applications hardly anyone uses provided as binary especially
> in a server having capacity issues.
> And moreover in a repository that the developers claim is having
> fucked up usage scripts.
> Archlinux is not Debian, and in many aspects it will hopefully never will be.
> Most applications are of low quality. There is no need to "promote" them.
> Stick to what users want and whats important (for others, and yourself).
>
> Greg
>   

So you didn't take the hint when I said the TUs were dealing with 
this...  Packages in community, the low proportion of people who 
reportedly use some of them and how we can improve that is currently 
being discussed.

I will stick up for Sergej here. I don't like lots of unused packages in 
[community] either but I think it is more than possible to maintain that 
many packages.  In fact, any problems reported to Sergej through the bug 
tracker are rapidly dealt with so he is maintaining them.  He may not 
look at each individual package on a regular basis but if no-one reports 
a package broken, then there is little point in looking at it until it 
is flagged out of date.

Allan