[aur-requests] [PRQ#4831] Request Accepted

Maciej Sieczka msieczka at sieczka.org
Mon Feb 22 01:46:56 UTC 2016

W dniu 21.02.2016 o 21:34, notify at aur.archlinux.org pisze:
> Request #4831 has been accepted by Muflone [1].
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Muflone/

Again, this is not a duplicate and the removal is not needed. Here's
the story:

I used to maintain grass package in the "old" AUR. I didn't have time to
maintain it for some time and missed the AUR migration. I was actually
happy that someone took over. But I noticed a couple issues in the grass
PKGBUILD compared to how it was when I maintained it and wanted them fixed.

What Doug called a "cleanup" of my PKGBUILD was mostly (not fully, but
mostly) crippling it down, stripping it off relevant (and some 
irrelevant :)) comments and changing some syntax. I tried to focus on 
the positives though, and started a discussion about just the mssing 
bits, in the comments on the grass AUR page few months ago.

Doug was strangely hesistant to fix some of the issues, for no reason,
and for no benefit to anyone. He treated me like an intruder, jumped on 
me, (quote: "You abandoned the package. Deal with it".) and decided I 
was "badgering and pestering". It annoyed me, I replied accordingly and 
gave up on him.

When some time passed, he eventualy implemented most of the bits he
previously removed during his "cleanup" (some being hacks, but
unavoidable), possibly partly due to other users's comments, but he
didn't miss an opportunity to call GRASS developers "lunatics" in regard
to Python 2/3 issue. How nice. Thing is that GRASS is not ready for
Python 3 as "the python" at its build- and run-time, there's nothing
wrong or right about it. This is just how it is. Any approach to this
issue is a kind of a hack for now, and the simpler and less intrusive
the hack - the better IMO. So when I maintained the GRASS PKGBUILD, I
used a python2 symlink instead of patching the sources using sed, which
is more effort and can be error-prone.

One of the things still missing in Doug's grass PKGBUILD is liblas
dependency. Back in October he just explicitely refused enabling it
without any explanation, and apparently hasn't changed his mind since.
This means disabling LIDAR functionality in GRASS, which is pointless
and a major drawback.

So I uploaded another GRASS 7 PKGBUILD (as "grass7") with liblas
dependency enabled (plus enabling OpenMP, LAPACK and BLAS features,
going a safe route with wxPython 2.8 vs 3 and using a python2 symlink at
buildtime instead of massaging the sources with sed). Then Doug
requested grass7 removal, making judgement calls about what qualifies an
AUR package, but unwilling to include the missing bits in his package
when being asked for it in past. Kindoff catch 22.

I'm trying to appreciate his contribution. But I don't understand his
motives and chaotic reactions, I perceive his behavior hostile. Based on
the very unpleasent past experience I don't I want to have to try
convincing him to do this or that. I'd rather avoid getting involved
with him regarding liblas dependency and in future grass PKGBUILD
maintenance. But I still want to provide a feature-rich, high quality
GRASS 7 package for Arch.

So, please let me know what package name I should use instead of
"grass7", and I will gladly play along.

More information about the aur-requests mailing list