[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz]

On 10/28/18 2:21 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> The problem I see is in your mindset -- I don't think you approach
> packaging with due respect for quality.

Okay, enough about packaging, what about dealing with bugs?

Bugs you've opened in the past, 25 in total:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?opened=22733&status[]=

Duplicates of existing bugs:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51419
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52308
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/53581
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49000
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51246

Bugs that could not be reproduced:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50186
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57712

User error bugs/not a bug:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51696
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56653
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56490
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51247
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49029
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60248 (the recent python2-awkward one)
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60247 (the other python-awkward bug)

Suggestion to modify core packages in non-vanilla ways instead of
relying on AUR packages that are customized to the user's needs:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50054

3 bugs were closed as upstream, not much to do about that.
5 were true bugs and fixed (or pending).
1 was a feature request.

...

15/25 not good track record, with rather a lot of reports that simply
weren't correct at all.

Particularly eye-raising were:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60248 -- report bug because we only
moved one package to [community], not two

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51247 -- misconfigured AUR package
breaks python interpreter, reports bug

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49029 -- reports bug for mainline kernel
installed from AUR

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57639 -- I'm rather skeptical of your
interaction when resolving this bug, particularly your attempts to
"solve" problems by selectively installing packages from [testing], then
installing a package from [staging]!!!

Ignoring comments on the bug where someone else figured out the issue,
adding fuzz comments that distract from solving anything while you argue
over whether you should be allowed to report bugs for [staging] packages
because "it is clear to all of us that not having libx265 has absolutely
nothing to do with the issue", even though that's missing the point
because we explicitly hide the staging repos from *everyone* because
they're not supposed to be used.


Based on your limited interaction in the bugtracker, you seem to have a
predisposition towards getting your system into an unsupported state
(AUR/staging) and then having problems. In a couple cases you simply
failed to read documentation and decided the package was broken as a
result of your misunderstanding.

Once again, you've ended up doing things which are completely invalid,
because [staging] is just not something anyone does, ever, for any
reasons whatsoever. The only reason to put something into staging in the
first place is if it's 100% broken and is part of a rebuild involving
multiple packages.

I don't feel that this shows the right attitude for packaging in
[community].

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181028/537ae0f8/attachment.asc>