[aur-general] TU Application: David Runge

Ray Rashif schivmeister at gmail.com
Thu Oct 26 01:16:50 UTC 2017

On 25 October 2017 at 06:12, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 12:43 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> Some issues were raised based on automated tool reports, which I
>> think David will be able to resolve.
> Excuse me? I am hardly an "automated tool report". :p You seem to have
> derived that conclusion out of thin air.

Ahh, crap. Before I get to that, automated tool or not, I forgot to thank you
for providing your feedback for David.

Now, about that automated tool thing: I did a search for 'xxarhtna' in my
archives and got some lines indicating an execution of a script. So,
it was not really out of thin air, but most likely my misinterpration.
It's likely my absence from IRC that's causing this faux pas.

But again, even if it were an automated tool report, it would have been
"issues based on automated tool reports", which is feedback nevertheless.
And for that one must be thanked.

> The reason I never got around to remarking on his packages until very
> nearly the last day of the discussion period was not just because I was
> expecting anthraxx to do so first -- I also spent no little time reading
> every single PKGBUILD of his in the AUR, and cloning the sources for
> perusal for several of them too.

No, of course, it's not wrong to not be able to commit to anything here.
If you choose to provide feedback that means you went out of your way.
And in this case you definitely went out of your way to support the
applicant's sponsor in raising concerns he did not, which is healthy.

> I've seen a lot of PKGBUILDs, and many/most of the simple mistakes or
> general style failures that people tend to make; I have a list of things
> to raise red flags over. But that still doesn't mean I can review a
> PKGBUILD without even looking at it! Maybe one day...

Again, that comment of mine was not really meant to say nobody did
anything. I really just wanted to say "issues were raised" or "feedback
was given". Me being a wordy person, sometimes extra words get added for free!

But yes, if there are indeed red flags that make the applicant
look totally incapable or untrustworthy, we should know, and
raise hell ourselves.


More information about the aur-general mailing list