[aur-general] Unexpected aur package removal.

[Daniel Wallace]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:41:50AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Wallace
> <danielwallace at gtmanfred.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:17:13AM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Wallace
> >> <danielwallace at gtmanfred.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just
> >> >> one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing
> >> >> package() in the PKGBUILD without any further explaination.
> >> >>
> >> >> The package is python-django-git[0], which I have uploaded 2-3 days
> >> >> ago[1] to replacing two old packages including one with 3 vote that I
> >> >> uploaded last Nov.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have already re-upload the package[0] since I don't think anything
> >> >> is wrong with the package (especially not for the package name, I can
> >> >> fix it if anything else with the package is wrong). And I just want to
> >> >> know if that was a delete by mistake or a missing package() somehow is
> >> >> enough reason to remove a package within ~1min after notifying the
> >> >> maintainer now?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yichao Yu
> >> >>
> >> >> [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-django-git/
> >> >> [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022494.html
> >> >
> >> > Please follow packageing guidelines, anything that touches $pkgdir
> >> > should be inside the package() function.
> >> >
> >> > repackaging without a package() function has been deprecated
> >> > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-April/010620.html
> >> >
> >> > and PKGBUILDs without a package() function have been depricated
> >> > https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/515/
> >> > https://www.archlinux.org/todo/clean-up-pkgdir-usage/
> >>
> >> I agree, and I have already fixed it.
> >>
> >> BUT, that is NOT what I am asking!! What I am REALLY asking here is
> >> why did you simply remove the package!!
> >> You can leave a comment (which you did 1min before you go right to the
> >> incorrect last step), flag it out-of-date, send me a email, or even
> >> disown it and correct it yourself according to the AUR two-week policy
> >> if I refuse to update. Is it what you think a TU should do to remove
> >> (without waiting for the shortest reasonable response time or even
> >> attempting to improve) all non-standard/old PKGBUILD on AUR.
> >>
> >> It is fine if you have just removed it by accident (although I will
> >> probably suggest to move the remove button and the flag-out-of-date
> >> button farther away for TU if that's the case), but if you were doing
> >> that on purpose, what you did is totally non-constructive. This is
> >> definitely NOT what a TU should do. Let me remind you what a TU should
> >> do is "check PKGBUILDs for minor mistakes, suggest corrections and
> >> improvements"[1], I am not sure which of the three does "removing
> >> package right away" belong to.
> >>
> >> [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU_and_.5Bunsupported.5D
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Wallace
> >> > Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
> >> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> > If you read the front page of the AUR, you will note the following.
> >
> > Contributed PKGBUILDs must conform to the Arch Packaging Standards
> > otherwise they will be deleted!
> 
> OK, as you are happily deleting every single slightly non-standard AUR
> packages, I want to ask on the mailinglist when did removing package
> immediately becoming the rule.
> 
> >
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Wallace
> > Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
> > Georgia Institute of Technology

For the record, I have only deleted NEWLY updated packages that are
either.

A) Named incorrectly.
	Someone uploads a -git or -svn package and doesn't name it -git or
	-svn, it has no votes and no comments, so instead of waiting for it
	to get to a point where it would have to be merged, I leave a note
	explaining that it should be named correctly and then delete it.

B) it has no package() function.
	I am not going through all of the aur and deleting everything
	without a package() function.  I am deleting newly uploaded packages
	that don't have a package() function.  I noticed yours had 3 votes,
	I assumed it was because it was one of the first ones in my rss feed
	of new packages to the aur, and one of the oldest since the last
	time I had gone through them.  If you check the AUR stats on teh
	side of the home page, you will not that 1/4th of all packages in
	the aur have never been updated.  So instead of just leaving a note
	to add a package() function I delete them because it is brand new,
	almost no votes and usually no comments.

	On this point, I don't believe we should be merging to any packages
	which do not properly meet the Packaging Guidelines.


-- 
Daniel Wallace
Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
Georgia Institute of Technology
-------------- 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/aur-general/attachments/20130313/11aa6912/attachment-0001.asc>