[aur-requests] [PRQ#6009] Orphan Request for dpkg
ido at kernel.org
Sun Jul 17 18:44:49 UTC 2016
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia at archlinux.info>
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things
> up on
> > > github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an
> > > update.
> > > That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control.
> > >
> > I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when
> > in the wrong. This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of
> > other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and
> > been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events
> > on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-)
> The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If
> don't have time to update other packages and require someone else to do the
> work, disown the package.
It does negate your accusation that I'm maintaining nothing, which is what
I was responding to. FYI, looking at the git logs of my local git repo and
the AUR4 git repo, it looks like I had committed 1.17.27 locally but not
pushed it to AUR. (AUR had 1.17.25.)
Since AUR4 introduced comaintainers, I've switched to making people
co-maintainers instead of outright disowning. That makes the transition
smoother - if I disown the package, the comaintainer becomes the
maintainer, and there is a transition period to make sure the new
maintainer remains active. Maybe I shouldn't bother though, it seems
co-maintainership is buggy in some edge cases (
> Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty
> the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release.
Agreed. Maybe a name with less negative connotation, like "dpkg-jessie".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-requests