[aur-general] TU application for Caleb, aka alerque

[alad]

On 21/06/2021 17:58, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 6/18/21 1:59 PM, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote:
>> If my existing packages or former FOSS involvement doesn't give enough
>> fodder for discussion, lets try some unpopular opinions:
> Speaking of unpopular opinions, holy cow.
>
> It appears you've been agitating on the AUR comments for some duplicates
> of the community/audacity package:
>
> """
> @yochananmarqos The Arch [community] package has been flagged out of
> date for over a year. When exactly is it okay to move on and post an AUR
> package? I'd say the delete flag should be dropped and re-filed when the
> repo package is up to date. Yes I know v3 hasn't been out that long, but
> the minor version bump on the v2 series that was missed a year ago had
> other fixes that pushed me to switch to audacity-git, now that is
> broken. This package seems quite reasonable given the circumstances.
> """
>
> So if I understand correctly, you believe that the official rules of the
> AUR apply as usual, *EXCEPT* for the exact case they're intended to target?
>
> audacity 3 is released in March, some AUR users are upset it isn't being
> updated in [community] fast enough.
>
> But... the rules of the AUR state that you must not take this
> opportunity to upload "audacity-but-actually-kept-up-to-date" style
> packages.
>
> Your straightforward defense of this is that... a year ago, a minor
> version bump took too long also, and therefore "given the circumstances"
> it's reasonable to just up and violate the rules of the AUR because this
> one package is just, idk, too irresponsibly maintained in [community]?
>
> ...
>
> Given the purpose of the Trusted Users to whom you are applying, is not
> just to publish packages in [community], but also to moderate and keep
> order in the AUR, I find it extremely relevant that halfway through an
> otherwise decent application you are advocating for this sort of thing.
>
Just for those unfamiliar with the situation, audacity is still at 2.8 
in [community] because of difficulties to package it without vendored 
custom forks. Ostensibly AUR users aren't interested in those details 
and post an "updated" repo duplicate.

https://github.com/audacity/audacity/issues/625
https://github.com/audacity/audacity/issues/853

So yes, I definitely agree with the argument. The people supposed to 
enforce AUR rules should enforce them, not encourage people to go 
against them.

Alad