[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released

Dave Reisner d at falconindy.com
Wed Jul 9 13:18:44 EDT 2014

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 05:58:02PM +0100, Steven Honeyman wrote:
> There are three very recent instances I'd like to use in examples here
> where the situation "didn't seem right" regarding the Request/Flag out
> of date features:
> 1. mdocml[1] - The maintainer is a nice friendly guy, I've emailed him
> back and forth to help him with the recent issues... but he doesn't
> appear to subscribe to the comments, or have the free time to maintain
> the package fully. (i'm referencing the recent comments on it) P.S. it
> still isn't right, and yes, I have even provided him with a fixed
> PKGBUILD [2]... but as mentionned, he is busy elsewhere, and wrote in
> a comment "don't flag out of date if there is no new upstream version"

Well, he's right. I see nothing resembling a "pending issue" here, so
clearly the current workflow was successful. This is orthogonal to the
idea that it could be improved.

> 2. musl[3] - The maintainer is not willing/able to support clang users
> (all it really needs is a simple if/else adding for cflags). I
> submitted an orphan request, it was accepted[4] - but before I got
> home from work, he re-adopted the package and still hasn't fixed it!

Wow, really? That's a seriously dick move on your part. The maintainer
has chosen to make the package work with the Arch defaults. That you
want to add extra complexity to support non-standard setups is something
that he's entirely in the right to ignore. *You* should be the one
accepting the extra burden.

> 3. pnmixer[5] - I'm now an active developer in this project and we've
> just finished updating it to gtk3 and fixed some major bugs. The
> package was already flagged out of date, so I submitted an orphan
> request, and it was rejected[6] stating "email the maintainer" - which
> seemed to be the opposite of what I was told by Lukas[7]

Seems like a matter of broken human processes. The maintainer seems
idle, with their last login being ~6 months ago.

> Sorry that's a little bit link-heavy! Also thanks to the people that
> are working hard on improving the AUR - I've had many requests
> accepted in less than a couple of hours which is great, the above 3
> I'm just highlighting as the "bad" occasions as they might help
> someone come up with an idea for how the process could become more
> refined.

Just remember that it's a two way street...

> Thanks,
> Steven.
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mdocml/
> [2] https://gist.github.com/stevenhoneyman/e1abfd3a434974b125bd
> [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/musl
> [4] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2014-July/000313.html
> [5] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pnmixer/
> [6] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2014-July/000307.html
> [7] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-July/029048.html
> On 9 July 2014 15:34, Nowaker <enwukaer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Perhaps if any change is needed, we could just get rid of
> >> the 'flag out of date' button and remove the possibility to unsubscribe
> >> from comments.  This way comments would be the unified mechanism of
> >> informing a maintainer that there attention is needed.
> >
> >
> > Totally disagree. I always go to "My Packages" page to see if there's
> > anything to take care of. That's because packages flagged out-of-date are
> > red, which is awesome. Doing `for p in packages; do read latest comment
> > done` manually doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> >
> >
> >> I think it's ok for maintainers to opt out in case there's too much
> >> discussion in the comments, but at least they should receive a daily
> >> digest by default which they shouldn't be optional.
> >
> >
> > The maintainer has to care about the discussion about their package.
> > "Disable notifications" should point to "Disown package". <trollface/>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Damian Nowak
> > StratusHost
> > www.AtlasHost.eu

More information about the aur-general mailing list