[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Fri Oct 26 18:19:27 UTC 2018
On 10/26/18 2:09 PM, Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote:
> I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the
> quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was
> used by group of people, after moving package to community, some
> things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because
> of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in
> telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues
> became accustomed to that package.
The whole point is that there was nothing broken, at all.
One package had a FTBFS, but the built package worked flawlessly.
One package had some confusion about whether some optdepends in the AUR
were necessary, but the conclusion was ultimately that they're not.
One package had a bug report filed, asking for the python version to be
moved to community as well.
All three issues were initially brought to the bugtracker. All three
issues were correctly handled according to the standard process.
At no point whatsoever was any sort of aur-general discussion, necessary
to the bug resolution process.
I'd also like to reiterate that none of the involved binary packages
were in fact, at the end of the day broken in any way, shape, or form.
Only one of the three issues posed the possibility that a binary package
*might* be broken.
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general