[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released

[Steven Honeyman]

1. The man pages are installed in /usr/share/man1 instead of
/usr/share/man/man1 (etc) in the current PKGBUILD. Don't guess based
on something you haven't tried or tested.

2. I couldn't care less about clang right now. I've never used it. I
aim to support as many configurations as possible though. If it was a
"dick move" then it should have been rejected.


On 9 July 2014 18:18, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> 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 a comment "don't flag out of date if there is no new upstream version"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 package was already flagged out of date, so I submitted an orphan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