[aur-general] Moving packages to Community

[Yaro Kasear]

On Saturday, February 05, 2011 14:49:49 Ángel Velásquez wrote:
> 2011/2/5 Nicky726 <nicky726 at gmail.com>:
> > To Angel Velasquez: the nature of the relation is not like an ownership,
> > but more like an authorship. Is it that much to show your respect to the
> > author by a polite question? After all we are people, not mindless
> > machines nor animals.
> 
> Hi Nicky,
> 
> This is opensource world dude, can you see it?, so forget those
> "autorship" and "license" of those PKGBUILD, plus, in many cases, many
> of the packages went from one people to another. Btw I don't know why
> people refers to packages when we are talking about aurballs
> containing PKGBUILD, this is different from a package.

They're still packages, whether they contain actual binaries or source code is 
irrelevent. What do you think tarballs are? The ONLY difference is in how the 
packages are installed.

Also, open source does not mean "no credit" or "courtesy free." All he's 
asking is to be told when the PKGBUILD he is maintaining is taken over and 
moved to [community]. I personally would enjoy being asked permission first as 
well. 

> 
> As Ioni said, he kept the Contributor tag, I don't see the point of
> whining if your work as a maintainer is recognized on that PKGBUILD
> but I don't see the point of contributing expecting recognition, we
> are humans, I know, but what can make you happier than the fact that
> your work evolved and now you have opportunity to evolve with it too
> (i.e maintaining new PKGBUILD and then applying to be a TU).
> 

So if you're maintaining a bunch of PKGBUILDs on the AUR and, say, 
hypothetically, that I, if I were a TU, were to move every single one of your 
packages effectively to [community] without typing a word to you about it, you 
won't get mad that suddenly you don't get any consideration? No, names in 
PKGBUILDs is NOT enough, as many people DO use AUR helpers and never even see 
the PKGBUILDs they are working with. Also, his point isn't recognition, but 
COURTESY.

> We eventually show our respect to the author to notice him that we do
> will move your package, but it's arrogant and too stupid to pretend
> that a TU or Dev have to `ask you for permission` <--- THIS IS
> MADNESS, you aren't the owner of that PKGBUILD ! even if you wrote it
> from scratch! the next thing after from asking for permission will be
> "please pay me" .. so hell no.
> 

Why is it madness to show someone courtesy and some consideration for being 
the maintainer of the PKGBUILD? No, it's madness to be an asshole to the 
maintainer of the PKGBUILD and not even give thought to TELLING them their 
package is now in [community].

Whether someone "owns" the PKGBUILD is quite irrelevant. A LOT of maintainers 
put their heart and soul into making sure those PKGBUILDs actually work on 
more than their own computers. TUs don't "own" those packages either, and they 
really should be at least NOTIFYING the maintainer of the acquisition.

So hell yes, there should at least be a notification. If it inconveniences 
you, then you should not be a TU.

> EOF

Wow, your attitude toward AUR package maintainers makes me wanna put PKGBUILDs 
on my own site instead of the AUR. There I can DEFINITEY "own" PKGBUILDs if I 
want to, but further, I'd be able to keep people with your hostile attitude 
away from my own maintainership. The only downside is my package will not be 
part of any official repository that way, and who would that help?