[aur-general] Remove ardour3-svn
xyne at archlinux.ca
Tue Dec 21 12:33:04 EST 2010
On 2010-12-21 15:55 +0100 (51:2)
Cédric Girard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Bernardo Barros
> <bernardobarros2 at gmail.com>wrote:
> > 2010/12/21 Cédric Girard <girard.cedric at gmail.com>:
> > > Why do you need to put this in post_update as well ?
> > >
> > > Could you also try to reduce this to meaningful info ? Like "Please be
> > > advised that ardour3 is not ready for use yet".
> > I did like this because Paul Davis (the developer that aked to change
> > it) said me he was confortable with this message as it is as long as
> > the user actually read it. Pointing to those two links maybe made had
> > a place in this decision? I can delete the post_update if you find it
> > cleaner.
> I know why you did it, even though I don't see why AUR PKGBUILDs content
> should be dictated by upstream devs.
It's not being dictated by upstream devs. The dev has expressed concerns and
we're trying to address them out of respect. He has been neither rude nor
demanding from what I have seen, and a simple message is a completely
Really, the entire OSS community would fall apart if everyone adopted this
apparent attitude of "I don't have to do shit for you, no matter how
ridiculously easy it would be for me, so why should I? Now do more for me."
It's parasitic consumption and it undermines the mutualism on which we thrive.
> Maybe you are right about the debugging info. But the paragraphs about "not
> an official ... package" and "do not use" just make the meaningful info more
> difficult to spot IMHO.
I would try to shorten the message (and use "cat"), e.g.
==> WARNING: Ardour3 is in a very early stage of rapid development. The upstream
developer requests that you only use this package if you are
familiar with debugging tools and intend to contribute useful
Please read the following:
If the formatting was mangled in transit, I usually indent everything to
the same level as the first word after "==> WARNING:", but that's purely a
> About post_update, maybe a TU or a dev have an opinion on this...
The post_update should only display this message one for users who are
upgrading from a previous version that did not include the message. The first
argument passed to the post_upgrade is the new package version so you should be
able to do something like this (let's say that you added this message in
package version "x"):
if [ "$1" == "x" ]; then
<include message here>
More information about the aur-general