On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Doug Newgard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > you're > > 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 > I've > > been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events > same-day > > on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-) > > The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If > you > 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 ( https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50079). > Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty > simple, > the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release. > Agreed. Maybe a name with less negative connotation, like "dpkg-jessie". Done.
