[aur-general] Moving packages to Community

[Ángel Velásquez]

2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh <imrehg at gmail.com>:
> 2011/2/6 Ángel Velásquez <angvp at archlinux.org>:
>> 2011/2/5 Gergely Imreh <imrehg at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently a couple of my packages have been moved to Community but the
>>> process feels a little uneasy to me.
>>
>> First of all remove that "my" before packages, that's a problem, some
>> maintainers thinks that they're owners of the PKGBUILD, and isn't like
>> this, all PKGBUILDS belongs to the Arch Linux project, and you
>> contribute with them if you want, isn't an obligation.
>
> There are way too many comments to reply them all, but I do want to
> take an exception on this one.
>
> When I say "my", that is "packages that I have been maintaining". I'm
> not "owning" them, of course. There's a sense they do "belong" to
> someone: you don't delete or orphan a package on anyone's request
> until they made sufficient effort to contact the maintainer and fix
> any issues. The original issue I wanted to bring up: if delete/orphan
> needs some form of cooperation, then why moving does not?
>
>>> My impression is that AUR is treated as a "second class" source of
>>> packages compared to the official repos. Not surprising, of course, so
>>> many packages have problems. This is also underlined by the fact that
>>> yaourt and other AUR managers are not allowed in the official repos,
>>> as "not to give the impression that AUR is official" (paraphrasing
>>> what I've read before).
>>
>> Not at all, many of the packages on official repos belongs to AUR in
>> sometime, AUR is a playground, where you can find scripts for install
>> (PKGBUILD) experimental software.
>>
>>>
>>> If there is indeed this divide, it feels more than little weird, that
>>> popular packages are just taken in to Community without even asking
>>> the current managers. It gives me the message that "AUR has no value,
>>> except when we say it has, at which time thanks for your work but now
>>> bugger off". I beg your pardon, if it comes through too harsh. I
>>> wouldn't have objected to have those packages moved. I, however,
>>> object to unilateral decisions.
>>>
>>> My proposition is: could it be a policy to check with the maintainer
>>> first before initiating a move? If someone wants to keep a package
>>> then they should be able to, especially since they could not have been
>>> doing such a a bad job if their package has become popular.
>>
>> Absolutely no, as I said PKGBUILD doesn't belongs to anybody, just the
>> project, if a Dev or TU take one of them and move it to any official
>> repo is good to you, that means that the software that you were
>> packaging by hand it will be on binary 'cause is pretty stable and not
>> experimental at all.
>
> I beg your pardon, but I don't think this is at all about what is
> "good" for me (and by "me" I mean maintainers). If it was really about
> the good of the maintainer, then instead of just moving, the TUs and
> Devs would offer continued maintaining rights in Community for the -
> apparently successful - care taker. I know that this is technically
> not feasible at the moment. I believe, though, that it would be the
> The Right Thing (and saying this as part of that "Arch Linux
> Community", whose good you want to above all), but that's for another
> time, I'm not pushing that agenda here at all.
>
>> I understand your point about, I'm giving my time and receive nothing,
>> well dude, you should give without expecting anything, and you will be
>> more happier. I also understand the point about TU/Devs didn't said
>> anything to the PKGBUILD that you were maintaining will become a
>> package, well, maybe a little courtesy from the TU or Dev who did this
>> is good, but he doesn't have to ask your permission, remember you
>> contribute with the project giving your effort on those PKGBUILD but
>> that doesn't imply that you are owner of those PKGBUILD.
>>
>> Thanks for contributing with the Arch Linux project, And I hope now
>> you will contribute without hoping regalies or something.
>>
>
> I'm sorry again, but you don't seem to get it: I don't want anything
> more in return than what you expect from me -common courtesy.
>
> As for the comment that only very few people write back on the TUs
> notes of moving: I didn't either. Why? It's all settled already,
> what's there more to say? I don't think the number of replies have any
> relation to the number of people who cared.
>
> I'm very happy to contribute. I'm very happy to spend time fixing
> packages. I'm always checking whether there are orphan packages to fix
> up. I don't apply to be a TU because I never know how much time I have
> and don't want to do a shabby job. But this does not mean we all
> cannot work together. Everybody gets different thing from Arch, but
> it's arguably a fact that what's good for me, good for you too, and
> vice versa.
>
> Cheers,
>  Greg
>

Ok this way of explaining the things is kinda different, the first one
sounded too harsh and asking for courtesy being harsh is paradogic.

IMHO , you are always up to write to the TU or Dev a mail giving your
thoughts or possible contributions about to a PKGBUILD that you used
to maintain.

For example, The last package that I took from AUR is maintained
actually with the guy who used to maintain it on AUR <ot>I took subtle
from aur and moved to community I first asked to unexist (the nickname
of the maintainer) about it, he agrees, and we work together on that
package, unexist is the main dev of that project who's better than
anybody to maintain that package?</ot>, that is possible, but you have
to say that you will still reviewing the packages that you used to
maintain as long as your time could.

Maybe thinking in a way that you could send _patches_ or something
like, could be awesome, we are always getting ideas to improve our
platform and to offer you our best.

Again, thanks for contributing with the project.




-- 
Angel Velásquez
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User
Linux Counter: #359909
http://www.angvp.com