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

Sun Sep 30 20:16:50 UTC 2018

>
> It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
> the first time.

Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken.

The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was
> never closed to begin with.

Sure, had it wrong in memory. Emails check out.

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'd have to say ROOT is unlike your regular software. I was preempting what
proved to be the case and not really too worried about the small python
packages and the smallest lib.

> 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.

I was referring to an email exchange that happened 13-16 Oct on this list
(you included) about me using python-scikit-learn as template and then
people said there were major problems. I went and checked my emails this
time to be very correct. But I think the `build_*()` thing maybe came from
another package as commits don't match. But it's a long time ago and don't
remember everything.

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.

Well, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I felt I was being shunned and
tried to be explicit in why I'm writing the email and what bothered me.
Sorry, if someone was offended.

It essentially boils down to:
> - find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by
>   sponsoring you"
>
I've had a look at that list before and did again just now. I don't know
any TUs personally and beyond asking here if someone is willing to sponsor
me, I don't know what else to do.

Regards,
Konstantin

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:16 PM Eli Schwartz via aur-general <
aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:

> 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
> > prompted.
> >
> > 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
> > emails.
>
> 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:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#How_do_I_become_a_TU.3F
>
> It essentially boils down to:
>
> - find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by
>   sponsoring you"
> - convince a voting majority of TUs that you're sufficiently capable and
>   trustworthy to package things as a TU
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
>
>