Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Hi On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > at least one > maintainer seems to suffer from something like a collecting mania > and/or control mania It's important to note: this is just the opinion of Ralf and Pedro. There is no proof nor a statement

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Hi, > On 13.02.2016, at 11:09, William Di Luigi wrote: > It's important to note: this is just the opinion of Ralf and Pedro. that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > that's a misunderstanding. I don't know if Det has got a problem. Det seems > to behave strange regarding impressions from Dave and Pedro, but I don't know > an evidence that Det does or does not. What I noticed

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

El 13/02/2016 a las 9:25 a. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió: > I guess we should add a few notes to the guideline Wikis, we even > don't need a CoC. Right now I don't have a good idea what exactly to > add to the guideline Wikis. Regards, Ralf I agree, we don't need a CoC, but we do need some

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió: > Hi > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf > wrote: >> and at least two other maintainers felt harassed >> by this maintainer > Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no >

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Hi, > On 13.02.2016, at 15:35, William Di Luigi wrote: > Mmm, but you said "at least one maintainer seems to suffer from > something like a collecting mania", weren't you referring to Det? I did, it was an unfortunate choice of words. > The "compromised/virus" flag

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On 13/02/16 02:49 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote: > El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió: >> Hi >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf >> wrote: >>> and at least two other maintainers felt harassed >>> by this maintainer >> Again,

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

El 13/02/2016 a las 3:12 p. m., Connor Behan escribió: > >> WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet >> you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is Sheesh! > He didn't say that it would be easy for you to establish public proof > (that would indeed

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:12 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote: >>> WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet >>> you are asking for public proof? I didn't ask for proof. I just stated the facts. The facts, again, are that you can't make

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On 13/02/16 04:12 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote: > El 13/02/2016 a las 3:12 p. m., Connor Behan escribió: >>> WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet >>> you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is Sheesh! >> He didn't say that it would be easy for you

[aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

TL;DR: We need to start denouncing and culling sociopathic behavior in the AUR and other parts of the Arch Linux community at large. The thread "Misuse of AUR (yaourt) comments" brings to light in the words of Dave Blair: Det harassed me with out-of-date notifications too. He seems like a

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:22:55 -0500, Mark Weiman wrote: >I don't see anything wrong with maintaining several hundred packages. >If someone is willing to and has the time to do it, I say they should >be able to without moderation. Essentially this is my opinion too. Anyway, since this thread came

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 23:46 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia > > wrote: > > > I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as > > > the > > >

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote: > I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the > arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge". Nice strawman you got there. For the record (if you actually misread me and aren't

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Hi On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Pedro A. López-Valencia wrote: > And I answered: > >> And if you think I am throwing ad-hominem attacks is because you >> havenot receivied insulting emails from Det to your private mailbox. It's still ad-hominem, technically. To *not* be

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 23:46 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia > > wrote: > > > I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the > > > arsehole

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:11:13 +0100, William Di Luigi wrote: >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:37 PM, P. A. López-Valencia > wrote: >> I do the same as well. Don't try to make the argument that "as the >> arsehole has more packages, he deserves to be in charge". > >Nice strawman

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

El 12/02/2016 a las 5:46 p. m., Ralf Mardorf escribió: > Fortunately this user seems to maintain 500+ packages less, assumed > the 600+ wasn't a typo: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2016-February/032004.html >

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

El 12/02/2016 a las 3:28 p. m., William Di Luigi escribió: > Hi > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Pedro A. López-Valencia > wrote: >> Maintainer Det: 105 packages found. >> Submitter Det: 63 packages found. > This doesn't really tell much, to be honest. I only see a very

Re: [aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

Sorry for this off-topic side note, I want to clarify that the issue I tried to address is that some AUR users didn't read the comments and continued writing long comments with wrong assumptions. When pacman was upgraded, a dependency of yaourt needed to be compiled against the the new libalpm.