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

[Jayesh Badwaik]

Dear Eli,

May be a little off-topic from the application discussion but curious. What is a good way to get those packages in AUR then?
Would `audacity-jayesh` or `audacity3` would be an appropriate replacement? 

-- 
Best
Jayesh Badwaik
Juelich Supercomputing Center
Forschungzentrum Juelich


On Monday, 21 June 2021 17:58:46 CEST 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.
> 
> 
> 

-------------- 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/20210621/af03c1bd/attachment.sig>