Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Daniel Bermond (dbermond)
Hi Levente, I use urlwatch and an Android app named Web Alert. The cell phone app is useful for me to receive update notifications on-the-go when the computer(s) is(are) turned off. But I do not have that much rules listed on them. On 26/10/2018 15:37, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote: > Hey Daniel, > > out of curiosity, what is you tool of choice to keep track of upstream > releases? something like urlwatch? > > > cheers, > Levente > -- Best regards, Daniel Bermond signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Membership Application
On 10/26/18 08:44pm, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote: can you please fix this and make your gpg key available somewhere? I've pushed 0F8E620A up. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 26/10/2018 19:40, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote: > Hey Konstantin, > > I'm wondering which tool you use to keep track of upstream > releases? is it urlwatch or such? > > > cheers, > Levente > Personally, the packages I maintain are not that numerous that I need a tool, so I check a couple of times a week as I am on the Git pages anyway. But now I see `urlwatch` supports Telegram Bots, so I might set it up on my server. Regards, Konstantin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On 10/26/18 2:48 PM, Michael Kogan wrote: > I would also mention that frequent version bumping is quite disturbing. > Imho, git packages should not be updated by the package maintainer (unless > there are some very significant changes involved) - this way every user can > decide when to update while fresh installs will get the most recent git > revision anyway. (I often version bump my git packages for the stable release.) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
I would also mention that frequent version bumping is quite disturbing. Imho, git packages should not be updated by the package maintainer (unless there are some very significant changes involved) - this way every user can decide when to update while fresh installs will get the most recent git revision anyway.
Re: [aur-general] TU Membership Application
Hi Brett On 10/25/18 8:22 PM, David Runge wrote: > > P.S.: As you've just created a new pgp key pair for your address, please > make sure to upload the pubkey to the keyservers! > can you please fix this and make your gpg key available somewhere? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On 10/26/18 2:33 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > That's from outside the PKGBUILD. I already did that when I uploaded the > package a month ago. But since then the package was updated. It's not > automatic versioning if I need to update SRCINFO every time. You what now? Why do you need to update the .SRCINFO at all? The PKGBUILD is not updated in the AUR, therefore the .SRCINFO is not updated in the AUR either. .SRCINFO is not used by makepkg at all, in any way, shape or form, so there's simply nothing to discuss about that. This is simply how git packages work. Stop trying to automatically version it, because there's no such thing as automatic versioning. There is only automatic updating. >> On 10/26/18 2:07 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the >> .SRCINFO file? >>> >>> Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? >> >> The PKGBUILD format is by definition separate from the .SRCINFO, you >> don't update it automatically by the PKGBUILD. >> >> You update it separately. The general process is described here: >> >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Uploading_packages >> >> The "aurpublish" package available in the community repositories can do >> this for you. >> >> >> OK. But I'll still need to create a local script that will do that, right? aurpublish *is* a local script to do that. ... I'm still rather unclear on what your goal is. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
Hey Konstantin, I'm wondering which tool you use to keep track of upstream releases? is it urlwatch or such? cheers, Levente signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application: Daniel Bermond (dbermond)
Hey Daniel, out of curiosity, what is you tool of choice to keep track of upstream releases? something like urlwatch? cheers, Levente signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:33:12 +0300 Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > > > > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:09:36 +0100 > > From: Konstantin Gizdov > > To: aur-general@archlinux.org > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > > Message-ID: <8cf660ad-d2cc-d275-7678-cbb32b0d4...@kge.pw> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > On 26/10/2018 19:07, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > > >> Message: 1 > > >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:29:59 +0200 > > >> From: Michael Kogan > > >> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > > >> Message-ID: > > >> < > > >> calsov+bp9ez_v_wfsv5mz9muaringnczxwyyx_1endofkj_...@mail.gmail.com> > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > >> > > >> First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the > > .SRCINFO > > >> file? > > >> > > > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? > > > > I normally have an alias like this: > > > > $ which updpkgs > > updpkgs: aliased to 'updpkgsums && makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO' > > > That's from outside the PKGBUILD. I already did that when I uploaded the > package a month ago. But since then the package was updated. It's not > automatic versioning if I need to update SRCINFO every time. If that's what you're looking for, this is simple. There is no automatic versioning at all.
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
> > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:09:36 +0100 > From: Konstantin Gizdov > To: aur-general@archlinux.org > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > Message-ID: <8cf660ad-d2cc-d275-7678-cbb32b0d4...@kge.pw> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 26/10/2018 19:07, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:29:59 +0200 > >> From: Michael Kogan > >> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > >> > >> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > >> Message-ID: > >> < > >> calsov+bp9ez_v_wfsv5mz9muaringnczxwyyx_1endofkj_...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >> > >> First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the > .SRCINFO > >> file? > >> > > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? > > I normally have an alias like this: > > $ which updpkgs > updpkgs: aliased to 'updpkgsums && makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO' > > That's from outside the PKGBUILD. I already did that when I uploaded the package a month ago. But since then the package was updated. It's not automatic versioning if I need to update SRCINFO every time. > On 10/26/18 2:07 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > >> First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the > .SRCINFO > >> file? > > > > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? > > The PKGBUILD format is by definition separate from the .SRCINFO, you > don't update it automatically by the PKGBUILD. > > You update it separately. The general process is described here: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Uploading_packages > > The "aurpublish" package available in the community repositories can do > this for you. > > > OK. But I'll still need to create a local script that will do that, right? > >> The package is not *supposed* to > >> show an updated version in the AUR, that's the whole point of a pkgver() > >> function. > >> > >> So how does the automatic versioning suppose to work? > > It already does work. You download the PKGBUILD from the AUR, and use it > to build a package. A pkgver() function *allows* the package to be newer > than advertised in the AUR. > > It's okay for a package to be newer than advertised. That's how all > *-git packages work, by design. > > >> P.S. There's no such thing as a pkgrel() function. > >> > > > > Good to know. Since I need it, What can I do? > > I assert that you do not need it. > > The pkgver is supposed to be set by the version of the software itself. > The pkgrel is supposed to be the version of the PKGBUILD, and every time > the pkgver gets updated, the pkgrel resets back to "1". > > See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#pkgrel > > An "automatic" pkgrel violates the fundamental purpose of having a > pkgrel in the first place. > > You're correct. My fault. :/
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 10/26/18 2:09 PM, Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote: > I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the > quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was > used by group of people, after moving package to community, some > things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because > of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in > telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues > became accustomed to that package. The whole point is that there was nothing broken, at all. One package had a FTBFS, but the built package worked flawlessly. One package had some confusion about whether some optdepends in the AUR were necessary, but the conclusion was ultimately that they're not. One package had a bug report filed, asking for the python version to be moved to community as well. All three issues were initially brought to the bugtracker. All three issues were correctly handled according to the standard process. At no point whatsoever was any sort of aur-general discussion, necessary to the bug resolution process. I'd also like to reiterate that none of the involved binary packages were in fact, at the end of the day broken in any way, shape, or form. Only one of the three issues posed the possibility that a binary package *might* be broken. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:09:50 + Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote: > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general > wrote: > > > > You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely > > clear. > > You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be > > a > > reason), and say things like: > > > > "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been > > maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that > > chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging > > with care and updating with new features." > > > > The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No > > offense, but you're an idiot". > > > > Reference: > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > > > > I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote > above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group > of people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that > group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community > package. There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining > package and his colleagues became accustomed to that package. Except there was nothing wrong with the packages in Community, nothing had broken.
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 20:48 +0300, Jerome Leclanche wrote: > I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous > few emails. There was a thread a while back that got a bit heated. > Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if it's > not, why not be a little more professional about it? Agreed. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On 10/26/18 2:07 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: >> First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the .SRCINFO >> file? > > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? The PKGBUILD format is by definition separate from the .SRCINFO, you don't update it automatically by the PKGBUILD. You update it separately. The general process is described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Uploading_packages The "aurpublish" package available in the community repositories can do this for you. >> The package is not *supposed* to >> show an updated version in the AUR, that's the whole point of a pkgver() >> function. >> >> So how does the automatic versioning suppose to work? It already does work. You download the PKGBUILD from the AUR, and use it to build a package. A pkgver() function *allows* the package to be newer than advertised in the AUR. It's okay for a package to be newer than advertised. That's how all *-git packages work, by design. >> P.S. There's no such thing as a pkgrel() function. >> > > Good to know. Since I need it, What can I do? I assert that you do not need it. The pkgver is supposed to be set by the version of the software itself. The pkgrel is supposed to be the version of the PKGBUILD, and every time the pkgver gets updated, the pkgrel resets back to "1". See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#pkgrel An "automatic" pkgrel violates the fundamental purpose of having a pkgrel in the first place. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > > You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely > clear. > You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a > reason), and say things like: > > "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been > maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that > chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging > with care and updating with new features." > > The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No > offense, but you're an idiot". > > Reference: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group of people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues became accustomed to that package.
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On 26/10/2018 19:07, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:29:59 +0200 >> From: Michael Kogan >> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" >> >> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version >> Message-ID: >> < >> calsov+bp9ez_v_wfsv5mz9muaringnczxwyyx_1endofkj_...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> >> First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the .SRCINFO >> file? >> > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? I normally have an alias like this: $ which updpkgs updpkgs: aliased to 'updpkgsums && makepkg --printsrcinfo > .SRCINFO' > >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:34:44 -0400 >> From: Eli Schwartz >> To: aur-general@archlinux.org >> Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version >> Message-ID: <6bbd283a-3587-d9f9-3dcc-3ba8e9f07...@archlinux.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> On 10/26/18 12:26 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a >>> pkgver() and pkgrel(). >>> However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked >>> the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct >>> version. >>> >>> The package is: >>> >> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules >> >> Are you Tharbad on the AUR? If so, you're using multiple email addresses... >> > As for the package itself, fake news! The package is not *supposed* to >> show an updated version in the AUR, that's the whole point of a pkgver() >> function. >> >> So how does the automatic versioning suppose to work? > > >> P.S. There's no such thing as a pkgrel() function. >> > Good to know. Since I need it, What can I do? > >> -- >> Eli Schwartz >> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User >> >> signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
> Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:29:59 +0200 > From: Michael Kogan > To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > Message-ID: > < > calsov+bp9ez_v_wfsv5mz9muaringnczxwyyx_1endofkj_...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the .SRCINFO > file? > Hoe do I update it from the PKGBUILD itself? > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:34:44 -0400 > From: Eli Schwartz > To: aur-general@archlinux.org > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version > Message-ID: <6bbd283a-3587-d9f9-3dcc-3ba8e9f07...@archlinux.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 10/26/18 12:26 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a > > pkgver() and pkgrel(). > > However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked > > the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct > > version. > > > > The package is: > > > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules > > Are you Tharbad on the AUR? If so, you're using multiple email addresses... > As for the package itself, fake news! The package is not *supposed* to > show an updated version in the AUR, that's the whole point of a pkgver() > function. > > So how does the automatic versioning suppose to work? > P.S. There's no such thing as a pkgrel() function. > Good to know. Since I need it, What can I do? > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > >
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 26/10/2018 18:23, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100 > Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > >> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: >>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: >>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html >>> >>> In this thread, you: >>> >>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one >>> that >>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. >> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking >> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and >> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over >> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I >> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you >> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. >> >> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - >> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given >> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if >> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being >> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and >> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me >> trying to do that. > You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely > clear. > You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a > reason), and say things like: > > "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been > maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that > chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging > with care and updating with new features." > > The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No > offense, but you're an idiot". Nope, it's like - I wanna make sure the stuff works and want to ask some questions. > > Reference: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > >>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that >>> this >>> whining is how things get done. It's not. >> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can >> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said >> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave >> exampes. >> >> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was >> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my >> email worked fine. > And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because > it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based > on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different > information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to > wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the > request and reopened it. How do I know this? Also, I just sent an email with questions, you could have replied - 'looking into it'. For example, https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034281.html > In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you > sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression > that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure > you, > it accomplished nothing good. OK. Good to know. >>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. >> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that >> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You >> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later >> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I >> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make >> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** > So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. > Yet > you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no > comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a > mistake. > > Reference: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html The mistake was I tried to re-open all 3 instead of 2, which I acknowledged on the spot. I just check in the bug tracker. This is the last email about this to you too. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous few emails. Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if it's not, why not be a little more professional about it?
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 26/10/2018 17:49, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: >> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: >>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: >>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html >>> >>> In this thread, you: >>> >>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one >>> that >>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. >> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking >> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and >> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over >> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I >> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you >> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. > s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/ > > By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely > implying oppression? > >> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - >> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given >> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if >> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being >> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and >> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me >> trying to do that. > Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you > wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval > in order to function as a distribution. > > I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an > AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people > are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is > *not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this > according to my exacting standards". > >>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that >>> this >>> whining is how things get done. It's not. >> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can >> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said >> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave >> exampes. >> >> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was >> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my >> email worked fine. > Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've > definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you. > > Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past: > > YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS > EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT. > > Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia > and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a > special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get > evaluated on merit. > > We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to > ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby. > > I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes > you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your > mailing list spam. > > I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a > look at your re-open request. > A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*. > > I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this > conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your > repeated lies about me. > >>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. >> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that >> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You >> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later >> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I >> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make >> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** >>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really? >> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy. >> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure >> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend >> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community & >> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good >> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took >> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion. > I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone > else to do it right. You're a control
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: >> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. > I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that > evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You > tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later > **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I > acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make > mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** Are you referring to this correction right here? https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034288.html By using my privileged power of reading comprehension, I've uncovered the astonishing fact that he "corrected" his statement by fixing the sentence fragment "was was never denied" to "one was never denied". (He also expounded on his previous point by providing additional information which his first post never touched on at all.) I'm not sure what subtle point you're trying to make here about "everyone makes mistakes", but when you come to the mailing list spreading assumptions and false information, and someone else corrects their own typo, then you're not even comparing similar concepts, so you should probably look for different proofs. Also it reeks of you trying to inflate someone else's mistake in order to make yours look less bad, because your reference here is, while "technically" not false, nevertheless designed to make readers *think* that Doug retracted something he said about you, rather than correcting a nonsensical typo that could very well have come from autocorrect. And, your false claims about how the bugtracker is being handled is indeed something that could use help in looking less bad. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100 Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > > I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > > > > In this thread, you: > > > > 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one > > that > > knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. > > I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking > them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and > how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over > the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I > tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you > will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. > > Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - > yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given > thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if > you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being > the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and > wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me > trying to do that. You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear. You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a reason), and say things like: "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging with care and updating with new features." The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No offense, but you're an idiot". Reference: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > > 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that > > this > > whining is how things get done. It's not. > > Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can > I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said > why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave > exampes. > > By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was > reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my > email worked fine. And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the request and reopened it. In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you, it accomplished nothing good. > > > 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. > I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that > evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You > tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later > **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I > acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make > mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a mistake. Reference: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html pgpcZVOtZcsFn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 10/26/18 12:49 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes > you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your > mailing list spam. That is, when reading your reopen request. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote: > On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: >> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: >> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html >> >> In this thread, you: >> >> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one >> that >> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. > > I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking > them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and > how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over > the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I > tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you > will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/ By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely implying oppression? > Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - > yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given > thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if > you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being > the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and > wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me > trying to do that. Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval in order to function as a distribution. I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is *not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this according to my exacting standards". >> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this >> whining is how things get done. It's not. > > Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can > I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said > why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave > exampes. > > By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was > reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my > email worked fine. Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you. Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past: YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT. Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get evaluated on merit. We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby. I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your mailing list spam. I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a look at your re-open request. A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*. I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your repeated lies about me. >> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. > I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that > evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You > tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later > **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I > acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make > mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** >> You really think this makes you TU material? Really? > > Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy. > I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure > the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend > on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community & > TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good > to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took > everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion. I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone else to do it right. You're a control freak, and I don't want to have to deal with you on the team, no matter how capable you are as a programmer. Other TUs can make their own decisions of course. -- Eli Schwartz
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On 10/26/18 12:26 PM, Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > Hi, > > I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a > pkgver() and pkgrel(). > However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked > the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct > version. > > The package is: > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules Are you Tharbad on the AUR? If so, you're using multiple email addresses... As for the package itself, fake news! The package is not *supposed* to show an updated version in the AUR, that's the whole point of a pkgver() function. P.S. There's no such thing as a pkgrel() function. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 19:26:43 +0300 Shay Gover via aur-general wrote: > Hi, > > I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a > pkgver() and pkgrel(). > However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked > the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct > version. > > The package is: > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules > > Ideas? > > Thanks, > > Shay Gover You didn't update .SRCINFO
Re: [aur-general] Automatic package version
First thing coming to mind: Did you possibly forget to update the .SRCINFO file? Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 18:27 Uhr schrieb Shay Gover via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org>: > Hi, > > I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a > pkgver() and pkgrel(). > However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked > the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct > version. > > The package is: > > https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules > > Ideas? > > Thanks, > > Shay Gover >
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html > > In this thread, you: > > 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one > that > knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted. Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up - yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me trying to do that. > 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this > whining is how things get done. It's not. Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave exampes. By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my email worked fine. > 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.** > You really think this makes you TU material? Really? Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy. I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community & TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion. Moreover, I am still trying to have a respectful conversation, give my reasoning and make my point heard in the face of you trying to completely misrepresent my intentions, what I said and did, and what I stand for. Regards, Konstantin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[aur-general] Automatic package version
Hi, I have a pakage in AUR that uses an automatic package versioning. I use a pkgver() and pkgrel(). However I just noticed that the package version in AUR is old. I checked the functions and everything is OK. Running makepkg gives the correct version. The package is: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=virtualbox-ck-modules Ideas? Thanks, Shay Gover
Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov
I must point out this very recent mailing list thread: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html In this thread, you: 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS. 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this whining is how things get done. It's not. 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker. You really think this makes you TU material? Really? pgp1kq7mkCEqE.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] flood of package adoption emails
On 10/26/18 9:09 AM, Robin Broda via aur-general wrote: > On 10/26/18 10:36 AM, Johannes Wienke wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> yesterday I received about 10 email notifications that my package >> pass-git-helper-git was adopted by some random user, differing in each >> email. Yet, the web interface shows myself as the maintainer and I never >> opened the package for adoption. Does anyone know what is going on here? >> I can provide such an email for debugging purposes if necessary. >> >> Johannes >> > > There's (was?) a bug that caused these wrong mails to be generated, > it has supposedly been fixed though apparently the fix doesn't work either The bug is that https://git.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/commit/?id=b702e5c0e7f13103fc764b7e5613f78f3e7acd30 only fixed things for the ssh interface, which, well, in retrospect does not help for the web notifications. Now tracked as https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60601 and hopefully fixed for good. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] flood of package adoption emails
On 10/26/18 10:36 AM, Johannes Wienke wrote: > Dear all, > > yesterday I received about 10 email notifications that my package > pass-git-helper-git was adopted by some random user, differing in each > email. Yet, the web interface shows myself as the maintainer and I never > opened the package for adoption. Does anyone know what is going on here? > I can provide such an email for debugging purposes if necessary. > > Johannes > There's (was?) a bug that caused these wrong mails to be generated, it has supposedly been fixed though apparently the fix doesn't work either -- Rob (coderobe) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
[aur-general] flood of package adoption emails
Dear all, yesterday I received about 10 email notifications that my package pass-git-helper-git was adopted by some random user, differing in each email. Yet, the web interface shows myself as the maintainer and I never opened the package for adoption. Does anyone know what is going on here? I can provide such an email for debugging purposes if necessary. Johannes
