> > It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for > the first time.
Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken. The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was > never closed to begin with. Sure, had it wrong in memory. Emails check out. That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to > suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly > special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you > can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a > lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be > reached in realtime. I'd have to say ROOT is unlike your regular software. I was preempting what proved to be the case and not really too worried about the small python packages and the smallest lib. > Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and > sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a > community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that > before). Maybe I was too harsh there. I was referring to an email exchange that happened 13-16 Oct on this list (you included) about me using python-scikit-learn as template and then people said there were major problems. I went and checked my emails this time to be very correct. But I think the `build_*()` thing maybe came from another package as commits don't match. But it's a long time ago and don't remember everything. On the other hand, this email > thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its > accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even > though this is patently untrue. Well, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I felt I was being shunned and tried to be explicit in why I'm writing the email and what bothered me. Sorry, if someone was offended. It essentially boils down to: > - find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by > sponsoring you" > I've had a look at that list before and did again just now. I don't know any TUs personally and beyond asking here if someone is willing to sponsor me, I don't know what else to do. Regards, Konstantin On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:16 PM Eli Schwartz via aur-general < [email protected]> wrote: > On 9/30/18 2:51 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks for the comments and explanations. > > > > Firstly, I wanna say that I am not asking for special treatment or > > anything. Just wanted to discuss in detail what is going on. Secondly, a > > few comments stood out to me (in no particular order). > > > > I actually want to move the whole "root" tree, but considering its > >> number I just started with the easier "leaf" ones. > > > > This is what I suspected to be honest. The packages that were pulled were > > way too specific. Well, if you're going to do this, then I'd like to > have a > > conversation about it. (below) > > > > Regarding FS#60248 > >> Just release the python2 version of the package in the AUR. > > > > Sure, just wanted to be sure that's the expected approach. > > > > What original intention? Packages don't need to meet any intention. > >> They should be packaged acording to the guidelines > > > > Of course, they do - packages exist for a reason and the way they are > > packaged expresses the intention - feature support, type of build, > > structure, etc. All of that is beyond scope of packaging standards. > > > > This is fairly common -- while it is nice to get in touch with the AUR > >> maintainer, we hardly need *permission* to package something for the > >> repos. As always, you can report bugs with the official packages. > > > > I was not implying *permission* is needed, this is not the point - the > > point is letting people, who put their time in, know what's up. In any > > case, I listed this as an observation, hence the reason my email was > > prompted. > > > > Denied resolution? > >> ... > >> I fail to see how you're being "denied" anything. > > > > Call it what you want, I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with > > little to no comment/explanation. I wanted to know if python2 is going to > > be added by Felix or not - instead I was scolded at the bug and here in > > emails. > > Because again, it's hardly a bug, and I'd say the fact that he didn't > add one demonstrates that he *won't*? > > > The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open > > without explanation/investigation. > > It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for > the first time. > > > The third bug was re-opened by Filipe > > after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it. So all bugs > > were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about it here. That > to > > me is 'denied'. > > The third bug was never reopened, by Filipe or anyone else, since it was > never closed to begin with. > > > Whatever we want. > > > > Of course, but not helpful. I'll explain. > > > > You don't get to act as some sort of concerned citizen here to protect > >> your packages from the incompetent Devs/TUs when your PKGBUILD contains > >> this junk. > >> (Sorry for being harsh, but this is the reaction you invite when you set > >> yourself up as the superior packager.) > > > > I am not pertaining to be a superior packager and I am not calling anyone > > incompetent. This is completely beside the point. I will explain below. > But > > to address the state of this particular package - it was added 2 weeks > ago > > in a rush to push a new version upstream, because I maintain my packages > > well. This package and another from same time around need a complete > > rewrite, which I'm aware of. And this particular style of package was > > copied from another [community] package a long time ago, things have > > changed as it was pointed out to me here in the AUR. I had intentions to > > fix it as soon as I had time. Picking out one package out of the whole > > stack, which I have not had time to properly deal with, proves nothing, > but > > that you aim to shame, rather than to understand where I'm coming from, > why > > I am worried and that I'm actually looking to be heard and help. > > Offtopic: I don't really understand this logic, copying something from a > template like that if you know it's wrong, does not save any time. It's > actually more work to do it wrongly like that. > > Anyway, I get that not everyone truly understands how PKGBUILDs work and > sometimes fall prey to terrible examples (though really, you're saying a > community package did this??? which one, I don't think I've seen that > before). Maybe I was too harsh there. On the other hand, this email > thread did not predispose me to being especially generous, what with its > accusations about how we close bugs and don't care about your input even > though this is patently untrue. > > > So to make all of this more clear to everyone. I took on the task to > > maintain CERN's ROOT a couple of years ago and since then I've involved > > myself heavily, I'm a contributor to the project and I use it daily in my > > work. Colleagues at CERN that use Arch Linux have been depending on me > for > > this. I have enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream to > make > > even more functionality, bug fixes, etc. Currently, I am working on two > new > > features with upstream, namely to allow for full build without internal > > dependencies, only external, and secondly for python2 and python3 > > simultaneous support. This is semi possible at the moment, but depends on > > me having the time to debug fully 3 packages - Pythia, XRootD & ROOT > > itself. On top of that I have shipped several other projects related to > > this for people that work on Arch Linux to be able to enjoy - Docker > > images, GitLab CIs, SciKit-HEP packages like uproot and so on. > > > > All of this is not a brag, it's not to say I am a better packager, and I > am > > not asking for special attention. But what I want to make something > clear - > > not all things can be said in a PKGBUILD. Packaging intentions matter and > > simply taking over packages without looking for/listening to the > > maintainer's comments may be detrimental. For example, the new features I > > worked to bring to the ROOT ecosystem and ones which I plan to work on in > > the future are obviously not part of my PKGBUILD. > > That's fine, and you are cordially invited to engage in dialogue to > suggest things to the Devs/TUs. I don't see how this is particularly > special just because you once maintained them in the AUR either -- you > can submit feature requests, or directly email the maintainer for a > lengthy chat, for *any* package. Many of us are also on IRC, and can be > reached in realtime. > > > I am not sure how much this applies to me in this case, but if it does I > > can say the following. I am willing to apply for a Trusted User to > maintain > > ROOT's stack for Arch. I use the ROOT software on a daily basis. I take > > great care of the package (the whole stack actually) as my work depends > on > > it. I have a test bench and people in my professional area use it and > > depend on me to bring improvements and new possibilities. I have involved > > myself and consider it an on-going duty. I have the skills and know-how > to > > maintain the ROOT stack and I can say with certainty that AUR's ROOT > > package is only second to Fedora's package across other distros. But I > also > > understand it is not perfect and am interested in making it better as > I've > > shown previously here and to its users. > > > > If that is not an option, however, then I would like to say to Felix > thanks > > for taking over and to take `root-extra` as the template for his package > > and drop all other variants. This was always the plan after a few things > > finally got merged upstream. I can go into detail privately. > > No one here is going to say it is or isn't an option (because we are a > consensus so it doesn't entirely work that way), but if you want to > apply, then the general process is described here: > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#How_do_I_become_a_TU.3F > > It essentially boils down to: > > - find an existing TU who is willing to advocate on your behalf by > sponsoring you" > - convince a voting majority of TUs that you're sufficiently capable and > trustworthy to package things as a TU > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > >
