[aur-general] Questions about some of my packages being adopted in [community]

[Filipe Laíns]

On Sat, 2018-09-29 at 20:57 +0100, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm writing to hopefully get some clarity on some packages that I
> maintained in AUR (python-awkward-array, unuran), but have been
> overtaken
> now in [community]. Also one other package that I have not maintained
> 'libafterimage', but dear to me.
> 
> Firstly, thanks to Felix Yan for picking them up and sorry if the
> following
> questions have been asked before and obvious to everyone.
> 
> This is what I know:
> 
> 1. Nothing in the core repos depends on them and they are libraries.
> I've
> not seen requests to add them before.
That is not required.

> 2. 'libafterimage' includes a bug that has been reported to AUR, but
> has
> not been fixed. I've had to include a patch in my local chain.
> 3. The packages do not provide the same functionality as before, but
> conflict with the AUR ones.
Check my comments below.

> 4. I wasn't told anything - my AUR package was deleted with a 'thanks
> for
> maintaining it' message.
I try to ask before moving packages but that isn't always that easy. It
ends up delaying releases of a few packages. Besides, not everyone had
the same free time I do, so it's very reasonable that felix didn't
contact you first.

> 5. I've reported a few bugs FS#6024{6,7,8}, but have been denied
> resolution.
Regarding FS#60246
  What did you do to reproduce this? Did you build in a clean chroot?
Right now the header files are being packaged and this should be
reproducible. If you can't reproduce this inside a clean chroot, then
open a bug report.

Regarding FS#60247
  I left a comment there - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60247

Regarding FS#60248
  Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.

> The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of
> that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for
> packaging
> with care and updating with new features. But now, obviously that is
> changing and people are going to flock if something doesn't work as
> expected. So this is sort of me getting ahead of the wind and
> basically
> asking the question:
> 
>  - Why?
Why what? Why were they moved? I don't know for sure but if they're
moderately popular, there's your reason.

>  - How many & which will be put into [community]?
Popular packages could be moved to community if a TU wants to maintain
them.

>  - How can I effectively communicate the nuts & bolts to the new
> maintenaners so to say, to make sure users still get what's expected?
The maintainers should be able to properly package the software on
their own. What users expect might not be the proper way to do it. If
you have a problem, you open a bug report or you send a mail to the
mailing list like you did, depending on the nature of the problem.

>  - Is there anything I can do if new packages do not meet what the
> original
> intention was - apart from making a conflicting AUR package?
What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
They should be packaged acording to the guidelines


Thanks,
Filipe Laíns
3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20180929/b81a80c8/attachment.asc>