[aur-general] Fwd: [REPORT] Banned for reporting Out of Date CVS packages by Alucryd

[Eli Schwartz]

On 11/04/2016 09:13 AM, Ake Doragon no Namida via aur-general wrote:
> Hi, i have a problem with Alucryd from AUR. Just read and give me your
> opinion.

My opinion is that you are a troublemaker.

>> Will you please stop flagging CVS packages that need absolutely no
>> updating ? More than half of what you flagged builds perfectly fine
>> and is not out of date. While the others do need some changes
>> (which I already did or will this week) you will find that I have
>> close to no patience and might get temporarily banned really soon
>> if you keep trying it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Maxime
>>
>> // Ok, so this guys mean: if i have installed new version (for example 10)
> a year ago, and i want update my package to new version (f.e.55) i must
> remember this package name and reinstall it manually, cos *pacman
> -Syu* or *yaourt
> -Syyu* will not work. And what when i will have 200 packages on my PC with
> this like "out of date" version in aur? Maybe pkgbuild is always UP to
> date, but version what is in AUR *IS NOT*

So use the --devel flag for yaourt, which clones and checks all
*-git/*-hg/*-svn/*-bzr packages to see if there is a new version.

AUR helpers in general come with options to do this, that is why they
are "helpers" -- because they help you.


> *BANNED? For what?*
> 
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/flaghelp/ -- nothing about CVS packages
> 
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ta … a_CVS_repo
> <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:VCS_package_guidelines#Updating_a_CVS_repo>
> -- first line what is written
> 
>>     CVS is not supported in pacman 4.1 like the other VCS tools. You will need to update pkgver manually until CVS support is added.
>>
>> i don't know what is going on, and why some of Thrusted Users are a little
> d*cky (maybe just this guy), but that's not a nice look for *Arch Linux
> Distribution*. Even for Thrusted Users

That would be "VCS" packages, as in version control, as in development
versions that have one PKGBUILD which builds from the latest source
whereby the PKGBUILD intelligently updates its own pkgver.

According to the conversation you quoted, you weren't even banned for
flagging them out of date, you were banned for continuing to do so after
you were warned that that is not what you are supposed to do.

> Arch is rolling distribution what does mean, always up to date. So to keep
> that initiative i am looking for Out Of Date packages and flagging them
> with link to last update or last version. Sometimes packages are running
> from git to sourceforge of from git repo to other git repo (i found 1
> package with this mind*uck, official move wat was written on official
> website of package). But anyway it is not thing for wich i should be banned.

Updating the pkgver in a devel PKGBUILD does absolutely nothing other
than allow automated tools to compare the latest development pkgver in
the AUR to the one in your pacman database. It does not cause you to get
more up-to-date packages, just rebuilding the same PKGBUILD gets you
that (it is the fundamental definition of a devel PKGBUILD).
Therefore quoting Arch Linux catchphrases gets you nowhere.

And once again, as I read it you were banned for repetitively flagging
packages out of date *after* you were informed that they were not, in
fact, out of date, and shouldn't be flagged as such.

...

Note: Personally, I often do update the *-git PKGBUILDs I maintain with
the new versions... as a convenience for users, to notify them that a
new release might have interesting features worth rebuilding for NOW.

But that is a personal kindness on my behalf, done since I have the time
and patience for it, and it is not okay to *demand* it of an AUR maintainer.
It is also a low priority for me.

If someone was being a nudnik to me about it, I would absolutely appeal
to a TU to shut that person up.

> Looking for unban, justice and TU should respect the laws

You have no sympathy from me. Not that I have the power to do anything
about it, but even if I could, I wouldn't.

Perhaps, instead of ranting in a disagreeable manner, you could try
demonstrating that you realize the mistake you made, are sorry for the
trouble it caused, and will endeavor to keep to the community standards
in the future. Then maybe you will *deserve* to get unbanned.

-- 
Eli Schwartz