[aur-general] Attempting to update upwork-beta, and hit a head-scratcher

Shane Simmons regeya at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 19:20:28 UTC 2018

when I said "posted to git" I meant "github" obv.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:19 PM Shane Simmons <regeya at gmail.com> wrote:

> If anyone cares to review the comments, yes, I posted on the git repo, but
> only because of the admonishment that AUR isn't the place to post bugs on
> aurman.  Or, you could review the comments if they weren't deleted.  Part
> of mine were a plea to just leave the thread up for people who were
> similarly confused.  Request denied, account locked, and a blanket message
> that peoples' accounts were being suspended for spam.
> Had you simply posted a simple "make sure to install expac-git before
> upgrading or aurman will complain about broken dependencies" would have
> avoided having anyone post comments.   Had expac-git actually been broken
> instead of me just not understanding that PKGVER doesn't get updated in a
> PKGBUILD ;-) relying on a nonexistent package would be a bug, no? ;-)  Your
> response to that was to first post the output of pacman -Qi, then to hurl
> an insult about how users are turing-complete and I should act like I am.
> (I'm paraphrasing here because, quite frankly, I can't refer to the deleted
> comments.)  It's not nearly as obvious as you seem to think it is (I
> generally avoid anything that has -git dependencies), and a simple google
> search shows that you need guidance sometimes, too.  Treat others the way
> you want to be treated, imho.
> As for the reason I posted to git, well,
> "This is not the right place for reporting aurman bugs or request
> features, please use https://github.com/polygamma/aurman/issues
> If you do not want to register on GitHub for such things, I do not care
> from now on.
> I am not going to respond to comments on this page, if they have nothing
> to do with the PKGBUILD.
> tl;dr: Bugs and feature requests -> GitHub, PKGBUILD problems -> here, not
> going to answer comments if they have nothing to do with the PKGBUILD from
> now on"
> Anyway, my solution was pretty simple: just stop using aurman.  If I'm
> going to lose access to AUR because my post is deemed Not A Problem, then I
> can't trust the software.  I didn't go around to various forums posting
> about how people shouldn't use it; it's a popular AUR helper for a very
> good reason.  I fully expect my account will be suspended shortly after I
> hit Send, and I guess that's fine.  I'm not married to Arch, either, which
> I'll have to stop using because I won't just make packages for myself to
> keep using Upwork.     But just...settle down.    Not every non-positive
> comment is a personal attack on you.
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:46 PM Eli Schwartz via aur-general <
> aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 07/16/2018 01:47 PM, Shane Simmons via aur-requests wrote:
>> > I never received any kind of notification that my account was
>> > suspended, or why.  As far as I can recall, my best guess would be
>> > that it was because I had stupidly published a bug comment to the
>> > aurman AUR page and was harshly schooled by the aurman developer that
>> > his package depends on a -git package, which had to be installed
>> > manually because, again, stupidly, I didn't know that -git packages'
>> > PKGBUILDs don't contain the current version, but is instead
>> > calculated during install.
>> >
>> > If that's why, after I understood the issue I just shrugged and went
>> > on with my life, and wasn't aware there was a continuing problem
>> > until I tried to push updates.  I'm more than happy to push my
>> > changes if I can; if it can't be reinstated, though, then I'd at
>> > least like to know why, please.
>> I did that, because of:
>> "
>> Alad commented on 2018-06-06 12:00
>> I've already removed scores of spam from this page. The next guy who
>> makes personal attacks or feels entitled to support without using the
>> proper channels as kindly requested by the author will get his account
>> suspended indefinitely.
>> "
>> And it is rather disingenuous to suggest that you posted *one* comment
>> and then moved on with life. One comment, is the number of comments that
>> weren't deleted. You've got another five comments there that I or alad
>> deleted, which makes four comments (3 deleted) for that *one* issue, and
>> another 2 unrelated but also deleted comments.
>> ...
>> Now let's consider why you were making all those comments on the AUR
>> page to begin with. It's because you already responded to a closed,
>> explained issue on the developer's Github repository:
>> https://github.com/polygamma/aurman/issues/153#issuecomment-399191472
>> And you did so in a rude manner, on top of ignoring the resolution (you
>> did not exactly ask for understanding, you merely told the developer he
>> was wrong).
>> He then banned you from his github repo *after explaining yet again*,
>> apparently because he dislikes you and doesn't want to listen to you
>> etc. yadda yadda yadda.[1]
>> So... you moved over to the AUR and decided to treat that as a means of
>> furthering your campaign of argumentation, after a couple exchanges of
>> which I deleted most of the comments and suspended your AUR account too.
>> Because if people aren't supposed to flood the AUR comments with
>> questions about the upstream development, then that goes triple for
>> using the AUR for the explicit purpose of circumventing the upstream
>> developer's ban policy for their own support medium.
>> FWIW your account is no longer suspended. But, keep in mind that again
>> there was a pinned comment warning users about the kind of behavior
>> likely to result in suspension.
>> I don't want to see this sort of hounding again. Picking a misguided
>> fight with people across two websites does not contribute value to the
>> AUR.
>> (Next time consider politely asking on e.g. aur-general "they say this
>> is supposed to work, but I don't understand how, can some knowledgeable
>> person please explain the concept to me".)
>> --
>> Eli Schwartz
>> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
>> [1] -- People are welcome to think whatever they wish about developers
>> who practice an over-eager ban policy, as long as they think it
>> somewhere other than the AUR. I also encourage people to read the
>> discussion at https://github.com/polygamma/aurman/issues/140 before
>> passing judgment.

More information about the aur-general mailing list