[aur-general] TU application; freswa
freswa at archlinux.org
Tue May 12 18:00:38 UTC 2020
On 12/05/2020 19.02, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 5/6/20 5:19 PM, Frederik Schwan via aur-general wrote:
>> My AUR packages got reviewed recently by eschwartz, svenstaro and
>> alad - thanks :)
> Just for the record -- I did not review your AUR packages, you may have
> intended to ask me to do so but this never happened. Perhaps you drafted
> this email and forgot to remove my name before sending it?
I just looked at my git log. No we did not. Sorry, that was not intentional :(
I thought we did a review when we talked about my bugwrangler application. But apparently we didn't.
> You did provide a very useful kernel backports patch for my zfs-dkms
> package, which was much appreciated.
Thank you :)
>> If I become a TU, I'd like to focus on the bug tracker until we have
>> a better solution. I'd also like to help out bug fixing when
>> maintainers are busy, away or on vacation.
> I don't know what this means... once there is a "better solution for our
> bugtracker" you intend to not focus on it? :p
> Becoming a TU might give more opportunities to commit fixes to packages,
> but it's unrelated to triage and analysis, at least, which I'd say are
> the things which need the most love.
> So there's plenty to do there either way. :D
> (Speaking from personal experience, being a TU has made me less
> productive on the bugtracker.)
I am missing any experience of a TU's life, so any judgement from me would be arrogant imo.
Though, I have experienced the rogue environment of the AUR and I think I'm well prepared
to handle some of the packages in [community], where at least no one comments "PKGBUILD broken,
`One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!`" :P
I intend to keep the bugtracker as my first priority though :)
>> I'm aware though that some of these packages do not meet the criteria
>> of 10 votes yet. I'll reevaluate whether they meet this criteria from
>> time to time.
>> I'd also like to go on helping Eli with maintenance of
>> zfs-dkms and zfs-utils in the AUR.
> Patches and suggestions are definitely welcome. :D
> Though I doubt zfs is suitable in any way for inclusion in community,
> despite indeed having enough votes.
I don't think it's suitable for community either. I'd like to continue working with you
in the AUR on it if you don't mind?
>> In case JetBrains is okay with us packaging their IDE's, I'd also
>> maintain them. But so far all requests I found resulted in a negative
>> response from JB.
> I'm given to understand packaging our current packages for
> pycharm/intellij community edition gives their current maintainers
> enough agonizing headaches. It seems like the kind of thing one would
> want to avoid getting involved in. :D
> I don't think we should be packaging their custom JRE, anyway, as that
> should remain an AUR kind of thing (and we don't optdepends on AUR
> packages either). This probably makes it more complicated to support
> their stuff, especially for things which aren't open source?
> tl;dr do you believe this is practical to focus on? Do you think they
> are likely to provide a way for us to package it which fits our
> packaging guidelines?
I don't intend to focus on this. I've been the maintainer of 5 JB packages
for some time now and JB is a pretty prominent IDE creator. If there is some time I'd like
to ask them how they think about repackaging their stuff. But before I'll help out on updating
pycharm-community and intellij-idea-community to feel the pain first. :P
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general