[arch-general] The "new" opensmtpd package

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On 2013-04-18 14:26, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Down <chris at chrisdown.name> wrote:
> > On 2013-04-17 22:04, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
> > I must say I do find it a bit off that a package with a conflicting name would
> > be added without even attempting to contact the AUR maintainer. There was no
> > rush to upload this package. You could have contacted him just to say what you
> > were doing, but you didn't.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> First, there was more than one packages in AUR (opensmtpd,
> opensmtpd-portable, etc). I hope others maintainers will not claims
> kinship.
> I have contacted, AUR opensmtpd maintainer by mail in march to ask him
> to update because the package was was out-of-date since weeks. He
> doesn't answer and it's not the same email that Hugo. I'm wondering if
> Hugo was maintainer of opensmtpd for more than 2 weeks.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier on, the package I maintained was
originally called opensmtpd-portable, since that's the name the devs
gave the non-openbsd version originally. I'd been maintaining it for
well over a year. I had contacted the maintainer of opensmtpd many,
MANY times asking him to disown it (since he kept abandoning it), but
he would just updated it every time I requested that.
The other opensmptd related packge was opensmtpd-portable-snapshot, which
follows the upstream -snapshot branchs (instead of the -release branch).
The former maintainer of opensmtpd had finally orphaned opensmtpd two
weeks ago, at which point I merged my old package's votes and comments
into "opensmtpd".

In any case, opensmtpd-portable and opensmtpd-portable-snapshot both had
7 votes, and maintained by me. opensmtpd was out-of-date about 5 months
ago, and had just 2 votes. Even if the name differed, it's clear which
one was the real up-to-date package.

In any case, I don't want to extend this discussion any further,
you contacted the at-the-time maintainer and I guess that's what
matters. There's little point arguing about this any further.

> 
> I usually  post a comment before removing package from AUR to notify
> the old maintainer. Do I have forgot?
> I think y're *very* light when you claims: you didn't contact the maintainer.
> 
> Anyway, it's pure courtesy and not really the real reason of the complain.
> 
> Secondly, I confirm, there was no rush. To give you more context, I've
> my own opensmtpd package running on my computers since the first
> releases of opensmtpd. Before pushing the package I telling myself :
> "Oh I it works correctly on my stuff for weeks, it's on abs for 1
> week, I can push it to community".
> So, I'm not a serial packager !
> 
> Emotional comments, like your and Hugo come time to time, usually on
> aur-general, when packages are moved from AUR to community. AUR
> PKGBUILD are _not_ the property of the maintainer (even if he's a good
> guy who drink beer) and sending a mail can be automated by AUR to says
> : "You're package have been removed. Thanks for you support :)"

On the contraty, I'm glad to see it moved into community, but I would
have greatly prefered to see a compatible package (ie: very similar flags,
config paths, etc) to avoid having to "migrate" to it.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
> https://www.seblu.net
> GPG: 0x2072D77A

Cheers,

-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20130418/779af3af/attachment.asc>