[aur-general] Questions about some of my packages being adopted in [community]
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Sun Sep 30 19:16:33 UTC 2018
On 9/30/18 2:51 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thanks for the comments and explanations.
> Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or
> anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a
> few comments stood out to me (in no particular order).
> I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its
>> number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones.
> This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were
> way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to have a
> conversation about it. (below)
> Regarding FS#60248
>> Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR.
> Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach.
> What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention.
>> They should be packaged acording to the guidelines
> Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are
> packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build,
> structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards.
> This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR
>> maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the
>> repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages.
> I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the
> point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any
> case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was
> Denied resolution?
>> I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything.
> Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with
> little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to
> be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in
Because again, it's hardly a bug, and I'd say the fact that he didn't
add one demonstrates that he *won't*?
> The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open
> without explanation/investigation.
It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
the first time.
> The third bug was re-opened by Filipe
> after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs
> were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That to
> me is 'denied'.
The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was
never closed to begin with.
> Whatever we want.
> Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain.
> You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect
>> your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains
>> this junk.
>> (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set
>> yourself up as the superior packager.)
> I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone
> incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. But
> to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks ago
> in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages
> well. This package and another from same time around need a complete
> rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was
> copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have
> changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to
> fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole
> stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, but
> that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, why
> I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help.
Offtopic: I don't really understand this logic, copying something from a
template like that if you know it's wrong, does not save any time. It's
actually more work to do it wrongly like that.
Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and
sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a
community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that
before). Maybe I was too harsh there. On the other hand, this email
thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its
accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even
though this is patently untrue.
> So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to
> maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved
> myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my
> work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me for
> this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to make
> even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two new
> features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal
> dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3
> simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on
> me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT
> itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to
> this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker
> images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on.
> All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I am
> not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something clear -
> not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and
> simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the
> maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I
> worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in
> the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD.
That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to
suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly
special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you
can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a
lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be
reached in realtime.
> I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I
> can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to maintain
> ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take
> great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends on
> it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and
> depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved
> myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how to
> maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT
> package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I also
> understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as I've
> shown previously here and to its users.
> If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix thanks
> for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package
> and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things
> finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately.
No one here is going to say it is or isn't an option (because we are a
consensus so it doesn't entirely work that way), but if you want to
apply, then the general process is described here:
It essentially boils down to:
- find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by
- convince a voting majority of TUs that you're sufficiently capable and
trustworthy to package things as a TU
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