[aur-general] Orphaning request - chromium-beta and clamav-devel

[Det]

On 9/23/10, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> You always should contact the maintainer before you send an orphan
> request to the mailing list.
I know that. I just didn't remember it so can you let it go already?
Are you obsessed about being right or something :)?

> Regularly "bumping" if there's an update means maintaining a package.
> Either you want to maintain a package or not. But you shouldn't
> regularly send orphan request, update a package once, orphan it by
> yourself, and send an orphan request again if someone else has adopted
> a package.
>
> Either you adopt a package and maintain it or you should leave it alone.
You are missing the point here. What I was _not_ doing was bumping
chromium-beta and asking everybody adopting it in the meantime to give
the package back to me.

What I _was_ doing was to bump it as soon as there is an update but
keep the package orphaned until an active maintainer would choose to
adopt the package so that my job would obviously not be needed -
unlike in this case where the maintainer hasn't updated the package
for 8 days (a long time for _me_ - no, I'm not saying it's a long time
to your or anybody else) and I have reasons to believe that he will
not be that fast in updating the package in the future either. This is
now the third time I'm saying the same thing.

> Btw., chrome-beta was first commited on 20 Aug 2010, only one month
> ago. So the maintainer probably hasn't been inactive and the package
> was not that outdated. Flagging the package as out-of-date and
> contacting the maintainer could have been sufficient.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you meant that JerichoKru was the
original maintainer of chromium-beta then it's wrong. Simply checking
the PKGBUILD or putting a thought on checking the comments section
shows that "Markus Golser" (or "elmargol") was the original
maintainer.

> And why is JerichoKru the maintainer and not you? And if you really had
> adopted the package, updated it and orphaned it at once, why are you
> now asking for orphaning this package again?
Uh, so that it could be updated? So that it would keep on being updated?

> It has a maintainer - I don't know if he's the original one - and it is
> not that outdated if at all. And if you regularly want to update an
> orphaned package then adopt it and keep it and don't always orphan it.
Same thing here.

> You put several times a link to a tarball at Rapidshare. You can't put
> a Rapidshare link into the source array of a PKGBUILD.
Ehm... :).

> In case this tarball was your updated PKGBUILD, you know Pastebin? And
> you've read what's written on the package site?
> On every package site you find this note written in a big font size:
> "Please use a pastebin or email to post PKGBUILDs, patches, or scripts."
Heiko, perhaps you need to start putting a thought when reading other
people's writings. This text here does _not_ mean "put every single
PKGBUILD, patch and/or script in Pastebin" but rather "please do not
bloat the comments section by pasting PKGBUILDs, patches and/or
scripts in the _comments section_". If you actually think that
anything else than Pastebin shouldn't be used based on that comment
then perhaps you could please leave this conversation here, as it is.
I've already told you why I want the package to be orphaned and if you
just refuse to believe it should be done, then OK: that's your opinion
and you've already made it clear.

    Thanks for your time,
     Det