[aur-general] Rescinding my TU application
Hello all, I am sending this notice to formally announce the rescinding of my TU application sent on August 16th. I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback, as well as apologize for not taking the time to better prepare and iron out all the details with my sponsors. Cordially, Jean Lucas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] Update: disklow
Hi Holger,
>install -m0644 -Dt $pkgdir/etc disklow.conf
>install -m0755 -Dt $pkgdir/usr/bin disklow
>install -m0644 -Dt $pkgdir/usr/share/doc/disklow sendmail-
setup.txt
>install -m0644 -Dt $pkgdir/usr/share/man/man1 disklow.1
>gzip-f $pkgdir/usr/share/man/man1/disklow.1
pkgdir should always be quoted ("$pkgdir"), to handle cases where
variable expansion results in string splits (spaces).
As mentioned, pkgdesc should also be 80 chars or less.
>gzip-f $pkgdir/usr/share/man/man1/disklow.1
Gzip'ing man pages isn't necessary, as makepkg does that for you
already (see /etc/makepkg.conf, keyword 'zipman') with system-wide
settings.
>pkgrel='3'
When you're ready to push this PKGBUILD to the AUR, you *could* reset
pkgrel to 1, since it'd be the first PKGBUILD release there (instead of
starting from 3).
HTH
--
Jean Lucas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 11:01 +0200, Bert Peters via aur-general wrote: > Hi Jean Lucas, > > I've been reading your TU application and I wish you the best of > luck. > However, I can't seem to find the GPG key you're using on any > keyservers. Did you happen to forget to submit it somewhere? > > Best, > > Bert. Hi Bert, and thank you! My (latest) key can be found at https://keys.openpgp.org/search?q=jean%404ray.co and https://pool.sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?search=jean%404ray.co=on=vindex (as well as the servers SKS Keyservers gossips with). On SKS Keyservers, I had originally submitted 2 keys in 2015, and they've both since been revoked. So my latest, active key has fingerprint 553C C0A1 134A 2E77 145B E12D 7416 2644 B297 6F6C, as posted on my AUR profile at https://aur.archlinux.org/account/flacks/. Best regards, Jean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 16:49 +0300, Sergej Pupykin wrote: > Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general wrote: > > Having nothing against is not the same as actively sponsoring it. > > All > > this discussion is kind of pointless until we hear from both > > sponsors > > telling us they actively sponsor Jean's application. Then the > > discussion > > period can begin. > > Ok, I am not sure about "actively" :) but I want to see parsedmarc > package bundle in community. As well as ghidra and coturn (which is > already in community), so I sponsor him. I'd like for checkdmarc/parsedmarc to get rewritten in Rust or Go so dependencies are easily resolvable... Python packages with a ton of version-specific dependencies are kind of crazy to package. ...and upstream seems to be allergic to tags. :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sun, 2019-08-18 at 01:14 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 8/18/19 12:26 AM, Santiago Torres-Arias wrote: > > > > - This appears to me it's a -bin package > > > > > > Why? It looks like some sort of standard js-based source package > > > on the > > > NPM registry. > > > > > > > well, judging from the lack of build() I'd assume so. I'm not too > > familiar with npm, but if t is running build commands (as you > > concede > > down in the email it may be happening) then that probably should > > happen > > inside of build()? > > That's what I do for rapydscript-ng. If you try to npm install in > build() and then npm install --prefix="$pkgdir/usr" in package(), I'm > pretty sure it will just build a second copy all over again, during > the > package() step. I'm not a makepkg expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the PKGBUILD man page (and knowing build() is considered optional), it doesn't seem like build() has any particularly different configuration that would affect the build of the package vis-à-vis building within package(). > > Repeat after me: "curse you, npm". Repeating that is the only way I fall asleep. > > It is very, very, very difficult to provide meaningful criticism of > an > npm PKGBUILD. There aren't a lot of options when it comes to > packaging > this language. > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 22:51 -0400, Santiago Torres-Arias wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:19:56PM -0400, Jean Lucas via aur-general > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Thank you for your time, and thank you to all who help make Arch a > > great OS! > > Always happy to help! :) > > It's customary to review PKGBUILDS for new applicants. This is > somewhat > of a quick/cursory review over 3 random packages as I've been in > conferences for the whole week. Thank you for the review! > > == Overall == > > - It appears you need quote strings way more everywhere, from deps, > to licenses > to variables > - Consider that base-devel is assumed to exist for makedepends and > (iirc). As Eli explained, the quotes are unnecessary unless you need to do variable expansion, and makepkg yells at you if you include a space somewhere. As for array keys, I think that no quotes looks way prettier >:) And yes, I've been working on the assumption that base-devel is installed for makedepends. > > == Beaker == > > - This depends array has to be wrong I've been working on parsing namcap output to make my life a little easier, so I'm basically throwing what namcap outputs w.r.t. deps at a script I wrote that looks up the missing libraries and spits out the needed packages, and I throw that into the depends of pkgbuilds. I do know that some dependencies are subdependencies of more higher-level packages (i.e. the higher-level packages already pull the subdependencies in) but I haven't yet scripted a way to intelligently omit those subdependencies. I don't think it is harmful to be very verbose on those dependencies, but I do make sure I work from an empty depends array to exactly what namcap tells me, as well as interpreting readmes and reading through the actual software being packaged. Then I test all my packages in clean chroots (especially graphical applications) to ensure I have the minimal amount of deps needed. As for depending on Electron, Beaker builds a self-contained Electron app, hence the specific need for all the dynamic dependencies (that something like wire-desktop can leave for community/electron to resolve, since it does not bundle Electron). As for glibc/gcc-libs, yes this seems like quite an involved topic with a lot of angles. Arch is glibc-based, they're both in base, so they could *probably* be omitted - I'm working on the fact that namcap tells me I need them :X > - This makedepends array too. you should make sure things aren't > depending on > py2 anymore Py2 isn't officially EOL *yet* - that's in January 2020 :) but I prefer to let upstream switch their dependency to Py3 because - I'm not a Python expert here so please correct me if I'm wrong - there could be some form of incompatibility when manually hacking in a Py3 build, especially for something as complex as a browser. > - I'm also a little confused, did you take over the namespace of > another > project called beaker? Why not just call this beaker browser? I don't have an airtight answer for this - I liked the named beaker more, and saw it used officially just about everywhere except the domain name and the GitHub user name. I also followed the train of logic that Firefox isn't named firefox-browser, nor Chromium chromium- browser - but then again, I was also unaware of the existence of an existing project called Beaker. I didn't see it in the AUR nor the official repos, so I went ahead and solicited the namespace change. > > == Oxy == > > - I think you should document why you're cherry-picking that commit > rather than > using a tag. Admittedly this is probably upstream's fault, but > still, better > to be clear. You're right - better to be clear. I will document my cherry-picks from now on. But yeah, not tagging your releases is kind of annoying. > - Again, I think your depends are either too verbose or wrong. This goes back to the glibc/gcc-libs point above :) > > == stf == > > - This appears to me it's a -bin package I use this package every day - its definitely not a bin / it builds the platform. > - npm -i -g --prefix seems like a good way to overwrite a bunch of > system files > and/or cause a bunch of file conflicts As Eli mentioned, this is basically the standard way of building NPM packages. I customarily check the file tree of my packages and make sure things are neat and don't collide. > - I think you can use $pkgname more often, namely when resolving the > url and > resolving the tgz file After reading Eli's reply to this point, I can see a point for why one would want to hardcore $pkgname everywhere (for namespace changes). I basically use $pkgname if its shorter than typing the actual pkgname, haha. But I really think a package maintainer should always be reviewing build/packaging instructions, and a $pkgname change,
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sun, 2019-08-18 at 17:56 +0200, David Runge wrote: > On 2019-08-16 17:10:41 (-0400), Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > I would definitely be willing to very politely ask the five > > respective > > companies for redistribution permissions for Arch Linux. > In the case of reaper, I've already been in contact with Cockos to > try > and move that to [community] and they didn't reply to multiple > requests > through several channels. > On its own, I have not been able to make sense out of the OEM > distribution license [1] for that matter either. > "... but I'm not a lawyer (TM)." > > Best, > David > > [1] https://www.reaper.fm/dist-agreement.php > Yeah the legalese is a bit hard to interpret, its much better to get a clear answer from them directly, and have them explicitly add a redistribution-by-linux-distros-ok clause to the license, like Valve did with Steam. I suppose more people could contact them to see if they'll budge. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 23:46 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 8/17/19 2:49 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > That said, I think its a bit unfair to say that I went off and > > found > > another sponsor without batting an eye - asking Alexander and > > Sergej > > seemed appropriate as they'd both adopted one of my packages, I had > > worked with you to resolve some of my issues, I've gone over all of > > my > > packages with a fine-toothed comb many times now, and got more help > > as > > needed. I didn't suppose that having you decline sponsorship should > > deter me from eventually applying until getting your approval. I > > regret that we didn't have better communication, though. > > I don't see anyone implying you aren't allowed to apply until the > person > who declined to sponsor you says it is okay. > > All that anyone is saying is that you're supposed to provide fair > disclosure of the fact that it happened. I agree. > > > On 8/17/19 6:59 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 21:58 +0200, Robin Broda wrote: > > > On 8/17/19 8:49 PM, Jean Lucas wrote: > > > > In totality, I asked 4 TUs - Alexander, Sergej, Alad, and you. > > > > > > Why did you not make this clear in your application? > > > > Since there is no formal guideline for writing an application > > AFAICT, I > > thought it sufficient to include the names of those who agreed to > > sponsor me. > > > > > I'm sure you've read the wiki article on Trusted Users[1] - > > > > *Note*: Should the TU you contact decline to sponsor your > > > > application, > > > > you should make this fact known if you seek sponsorship from > > > > another TU. > > > > > > Have you at least told xyproto & sergej that you have approached > > > alad > > > and me, > > > and the reason for me declining sponsorship? > > > > I have not. I contacted Alexander before you something like 2 > > months > > ago, and your formal refusal for sponsorship came in about 2 weeks > > later. Admittedly, I forgot to mention that you'd declined my > > sponsorship to both of them. > > Hmm, did you contact him about sponsorship, specifically? You say > that > he offered to sponsor you "after a few chat sessions", and that your > first contact with him (about him adopting your package) was before > your > first contact with Robin. If you only contacted him about sponsorship > after Robin declined, I'm not even sure why it is relevant if you > contacted Alexander about unrelated things. If you were in discussion > with Alexander about sponsorship before you asked Robin, I could at > least understand how such forgetfulness happened. Alexander and I initially talked over IRC about my package he wanted to adopt. About a day later, I pinged him on IRC about the TU role, shortly (about a half-day or another day later) after which I solicited a review of my profile for sponsoring. I think it was either that same day or one or two days later that I poked Alad and Robin on IRC about the same, one after the other, soliciting review of my profile for sponsorship. As mentioned, Alad never saw my solicitation, so the conversations only proceeded with Alexander and Robin. About two weeks after the IRC chats, after having previously sent a follow-up email to both Alexander and Robin requesting an update on their willingness to sponsor me, I emailed Sergej asking if he would review my profile for purposes of sponsorship, after which a whole 30 minutes passed, and Robin's formal refusal for sponsorship landed in my inbox. > > > On 8/17/19 8:46 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > For the record, it says "Should the TU you contact decline to > > sponsor > > your application, you should make this fact known if you seek > > sponsorship from another TU." - that should be reworded to > > something > > similar to what you said instead, given the recent amendment to the > > TU > > bylaws of needing two sponsors instead of one. > > > > Either way, I had forgotten about that part, so I failed to bring > > it > > up with the TUs I was in contact with. My apologies. In hindsight, > > it > > would've been a pragmatic idea. > > I... really don't see what is confusing or ambiguous about the wiki? The wiki says "[...] the first step is to find a TU who agrees to sponsor you. Once sponsored, you should write a witty application [...]", as well as "Should *the TU* you contact [...]", all still indicative of a one-TU requirement. > My > reading of the wi
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sun, 2019-08-18 at 02:12 +0200, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > > I reached out to Alad sometime in between, but he never responded > > to my profile review request; > > While I don't claim to be the most apt in responding to emails, I see > no Jean Lucas orj...@4ray.co in my mailbox. > I guess that's why I did not respond then. I contacted Alexander, you and Robin over IRC, you must've just not seen my message. I don't blame you, though - IRC isn't exactly the best place to leave messages for others if they're AFK, unless the recipient is an avid IRC user, IMO. > > > That said, I think its a bit unfair to say that I went off and > > found > > another sponsor without batting an eye > > That doesn't really matter - the admission guidelines [1] cleary say > that you should mention any previous sponsors you've contacted. > > ]1] > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#How_do_I_become_a_TU > ? For the record, it says "Should the TU you contact decline to sponsor your application, you should make this fact known if you seek sponsorship from another TU." - that should be reworded to something similar to what you said instead, given the recent amendment to the TU bylaws of needing two sponsors instead of one. Either way, I had forgotten about that part, so I failed to bring it up with the TUs I was in contact with. My apologies. In hindsight, it would've been a pragmatic idea. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 21:58 +0200, Robin Broda wrote: > On 8/17/19 8:49 PM, Jean Lucas wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > > > On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 10:13 +0200, Robin Broda via aur-general > > wrote: > > > On 8/16/19 9:19 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > > > My name is Jean Lucas, and I'm sending this email to submit my > > > > candidacy > > > > for Trusted User member. As per the latest TU bylaws, I'm being > > > > sponsored by both Alexander Rødseth and Sergej Pupykin. > > > > > > How many TUs did you ask for sponsorship, and how many declined? > > > > In totality, I asked 4 TUs - Alexander, Sergej, Alad, and you. > > Why did you not make this clear in your application? Since there is no formal guideline for writing an application AFAICT, I thought it sufficient to include the names of those who agreed to sponsor me. > > I'm sure you've read the wiki article on Trusted Users[1] - > > *Note*: Should the TU you contact decline to sponsor your > > application, > > you should make this fact known if you seek sponsorship from > > another TU. > > Have you at least told xyproto & sergej that you have approached alad > and me, > and the reason for me declining sponsorship? I have not. I contacted Alexander before you something like 2 months ago, and your formal refusal for sponsorship came in about 2 weeks later. Admittedly, I forgot to mention that you'd declined my sponsorship to both of them. > > > > after a follow-up, you declined > > sponsorship for the moment. > > Indeed, I did however offer to review any new things. You offered to answer any questions I had, and that you'd be checking up on my packages every now and then to see whether the quality improved without your intervention. You had already pointed out most of the errors I had in my packages when we first chatted, so I opted for mostly researching everything else on my own, reaching out to the IRC/Matrix channels for a few missing bits every so often. > > > I tried reaching out to you over IRC last Sunday, but alas, I > > probably > > should have done so over email instead. > > This is the last i received from you, FWIW I guess Matrix interaction with IRC is still a little wonky, then. :( > > 0507201 9:00:00 thank you for your feedback! all good > > points > > That said, I think its a bit unfair to say that I went off and > > found > > another sponsor without batting an eye - asking Alexander and > > Sergej > > seemed appropriate as they'd both adopted one of my packages, I had > > worked with you to resolve some of my issues, I've gone over all of > > my > > packages with a fine-toothed comb many times now, and got more help > > as > > needed. I didn't suppose that having you decline sponsorship should > > deter me from eventually applying until getting your approval. I > > regret > > that we didn't have better communication, though. > > I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Can you please elaborate? > > > > > As explained by others, most of these cannot be moved. > > > Have you talked to your sponsors about this? What have they said > > > about this? > > > > I did not discuss the moving of those packages with my sponsors. I > > was > > hoping to get the community's feedback on the ideas. > > > > But they're the perfect people to talk to about this! You're right. Our communication has been a bit sparse, though, so it didn't occur to me to run the package choices by them beforehand. > > > > > xyproto, sergej - have you reviewed this application before? > > > > They did not review my application. I composed it all myself, for > > which > > I take full responsibility. I had worked on their willingness to > > sponsor me and sent what I considered to be a fair application > > ready > > for community feedback. > > > > Welp, we cannot really move forward with this unless your sponsors > are willing > to sign off on your application, anyways. > > > All in all I'm fairly disappointed in how rushed you are with this. > You went through 4 people, and at least one has brought up concerns, > the others likely being unaware... My apologies for the disappointment. I thought I'd give an application a shot sooner rather than later despite your refusal to sponsor me, since I thought I was generally doing good in terms of package management, after having taken your and Alexander's feedback into account, as well as doing more research on my own to produce more high- quality packages. > > > [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
Hi Robin, On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 10:13 +0200, Robin Broda via aur-general wrote: > On 8/16/19 9:19 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > My name is Jean Lucas, and I'm sending this email to submit my > > candidacy > > for Trusted User member. As per the latest TU bylaws, I'm being > > sponsored by both Alexander Rødseth and Sergej Pupykin. > > How many TUs did you ask for sponsorship, and how many declined? > For the record, flacks has approached me a few weeks ago and asked > for sponsorship. > I had reviewed his PKGBUILDs and suggested many fixes at the time, > and also explained that I do not think it is time yet to move forward > with a TU application. > I offered reviewing his future things, and helping with general > mentoring, > however it seems like my offer was not taken - instead you just found > someone else > to sponsor you without batting an eye... Off to a great start. In totality, I asked 4 TUs - Alexander, Sergej, Alad, and you. Alexander reached out to me about taking over my "swaybg" package, so after a few chat sessions, he agreed to sponsor me. Sergej had taken over my "coturn" package, so I reached out to him to review my profile, and he also agreed to sponsor me. I reached out to Alad sometime in between, but he never responded to my profile review request; and after chatting with you and going over the various things you wanted me to look into w.r.t. my packages, after a follow-up, you declined sponsorship for the moment. In your follow-up with me about a month and a half ago, I was happy you let me know that you'd be checking up on my packages every now and then to see whether their quality would improve without your intervention, and that if I had any questions I could ask you. I know I could've reached out to you more directly, but I did my best to get my packages up to snuff - I'd been using your PKGBUILD review service, as you know, for all my packages; over our first chats, you helped me resolve a few of my doubts and mistakes; I reviewed a lot of documentation on the wiki; I rebuilt everything making full use of clean chroots and namcap; and I got help in the IRC/Matrix channels every so often. In fact, I tried reaching out to you over IRC last Sunday, but alas, I probably should have done so over email instead. That said, I think its a bit unfair to say that I went off and found another sponsor without batting an eye - asking Alexander and Sergej seemed appropriate as they'd both adopted one of my packages, I had worked with you to resolve some of my issues, I've gone over all of my packages with a fine-toothed comb many times now, and got more help as needed. I didn't suppose that having you decline sponsorship should deter me from eventually applying until getting your approval. I regret that we didn't have better communication, though. > > > > If I were accepted to become a TU, I'd like to adopt and move the > > following packages (all having over 10 votes in the AUR) from the > > AUR > > into [community]: > > > > anydesk, downgrade, exercism, flutter, godot, itch, mattermost- > > desktop, > > nvm, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, thermald, unity-editor, and > > unityhub, > > for starters! > > As explained by others, most of these cannot be moved. > Have you talked to your sponsors about this? What have they said > about this? I did not discuss the moving of those packages with my sponsors. I was hoping to get the community's feedback on the ideas. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jean Lucas > > > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/flacks > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=ghidra-git > > > > xyproto, sergej - have you reviewed this application before? > Given that there hasn't been an ACK from any of you guys after the > application was posted, i doubt it... They did not review my application. I composed it all myself, for which I take full responsibility. I had worked on their willingness to sponsor me and sent what I considered to be a fair application ready for community feedback. Best regards, Jean signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 02:00 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote: > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 01:35, Josef Miegl wrote: > > > On August 16, 2019 10:05:54 PM GMT+02:00, "Balló György via aur- > > general" < > > aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > anydesk, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, unity-editor and unityhub > > > are > > > proprietary software with restrictive license. I don't think that > > > you > > > can legally distribute them > > > > Even if we could, is there a reason to flood arch repositories with > > these > > proprietary programs? In my opinion proprietary programs should be > > an > > exception, not the norm. > > > > Josef Miegl > > Whether they are proprietary or not has never been a large concern > for > Arch. What concerns us is whether they are useful or not and whether > they'd > actually be used by any amount of people. Arch is all about > pragmatism. > > Sometimes, binary blobs are inconvenient for us because if they break > we > can't fix them. However, that's an entirely separate can of worms > which I > don't want to open in this thread. > > Bottom line: If it's legal to package and it's useful and popular > software, > there's really no reason not to package it. This is the way I see it as well. Libre or open-source solutions can come along anytime to replace their proprietary counterparts, if someone or a group has enough will to do so; but until then, having the best tool available for the job, even if it is proprietary, seems like a decent idea to me. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 17:47 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 8/16/19 3:19 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > My name is Jean Lucas, and I'm sending this email to submit my > > candidacy > > for Trusted User member. As per the latest TU bylaws, I'm being > > sponsored by both Alexander Rødseth and Sergej Pupykin. > > > > I've been an Arch Linux user since around a little before I > > registered > > my AUR account (January 2015, username "flacks" [1]), and I've > > recently > > had a few of my packages adopted into [community], namely "cage", > > "coturn", and "swaybg". > > > > I'm currently a computer science student with a particular interest > > in > > software engineering ranging from low-level (with a few > > contributions to > > projects like coreboot and postmarketOS) all the way up to web > > development (my current focus), and as such, would love to help > > maintain > > Arch's [community] repo in an official capacity to be part of the > > team > > that gives Arch users a robust, high-quality Linux software > > experience; > > as well as to help maintain, manage, and watch over the operation > > of the > > AUR and it's vast sea of software packaging recipes. > > > > If I were accepted to become a TU, I'd like to adopt and move the > > following packages (all having over 10 votes in the AUR) from the > > AUR > > into [community]: > > > > anydesk, downgrade, exercism, flutter, godot, itch, mattermost- > > desktop, > > nvm, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, thermald, unity-editor, and > > unityhub, > > for starters! > > In the case of Spotify specifically, the AUR maintainer is already a > TU, > and had you asked him before being eager to move it to community he'd > have probably told you that you're not the first or even the second > (or > third? I lose track) person to propose moving it. > I think someone may have also suggested it in a TU application > before... Understood. My apologies for not having researched this well enough beforehand. > > Either way you should definitely ask the maintainer if it is okay to > move it to community. If that maintainer is a TU, and they haven't > moved > it to community on their own, there is probably a reason. Understood. My intention was to open a dialogue with the maintainer of any owned package before taking any action. > > downgrade: > > I'm quite hesitant to have "downgrade" in the repos, it seems to be > an > immense antipattern -- not quite as bad as an AUR helper > in[community], > but nearly. Also isn't even well written as it does a ton of parsing > HTML files and pacman.conf in sed, instead of using either pacman- > conf > or an HTML parser. I really wish that people who wrote complex > integrations around pacman/makepkg would follow pacman development -- > in > fact, many of the current crop of AUR helpers do exactly that, which > is > why I would even dare use some of them. > > If we *were* going to add a program to pander to the desire to have > partially updated systems, I would prefer to create a new tool from > scratch. > > Also "downgrade" indexing archive.archlinux.org (with sed or anything > else) is problematic due to the fact that we no longer store many > versions of packages but upload them to archive.org and delete them > from > our own server (and use rewrite rules to let users download the > files, > but that doesn't help to build an HTML index). So I'm decidedly > unsure > how useful it's supposed to be even at fulfilling its desired goal. Understood. downgrade can be scratched until a better solution everyone agrees with comes along. > > > Additionally, I would express my willingness to help co-maintain > > "firejail" (already in [community]), as its a project I have a > > higher > > interest in and contribute to occasionally; as well as to help get > > "ghidra" in good enough shape to propose moving it into > > [community], > > since I've had lots of fun building it [2], its a phenomenal piece > > of > > open-source software, and it'd be nice to have it officially > > supported > > by the Arch community (it also has a nice number of votes in the > > AUR)! > > > > Thank you for your time, and thank you to all who help make Arch a > > great OS! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jean Lucas > > > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/flacks > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=ghidra-git > > > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 22:40 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:35, Oscar wrote: > > > I'm currently maintaining unity-editor and unityhub and I don't > > think they > > will allow redistribution of binaries. > > > > They even dropped the official Ubuntu packages in favor of their > > custom > > installers. And honestly it makes more sense to do it this way > > because the > > engine is a big self contained blob and users usually need to have > > several > > different versions installed at the same time to patch old projects > > etc. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:20 Sven-Hendrik Haase via aur-general < > > aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 22:06 Balló György via aur-general < > > > aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > > > > > 2019. 08. 16, péntek keltezéssel 15.19-kor Jean Lucas via aur- > > > > general > > > > ezt írta: > > > > > If I were accepted to become a TU, I'd like to adopt and move > > > > > the > > > > > following packages (all having over 10 votes in the AUR) from > > > > > the AUR > > > > > into [community]: > > > > > > > > > > anydesk, downgrade, exercism, flutter, godot, itch, > > > > > mattermost- > > > > > desktop, > > > > > nvm, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, thermald, unity-editor, and > > > > > unityhub, > > > > > for starters! > > > > > > > > anydesk, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, unity-editor and unityhub > > > > are > > > > proprietary software with restrictive license. I don't think > > > > that you > > > > can legally distribute them. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > György Balló > > > > Trusted User > > > > > > Well, you can always ask upstream. So far, we received exceptions > > > for > > > redistribution of more software than we got rejections for, I > > > think. > > > > Never hurts to ask. :) > > Asking should also be done in the case of all the packages Jean > mentioned. I would definitely be willing to very politely ask the five respective companies for redistribution permissions for Arch Linux. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 22:45 +0200, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote: > On August 16, 2019 9:19:56 PM GMT+02:00, Jean Lucas via aur-general < > aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > If I were accepted to become a TU, I'd like to adopt and move the > > following packages (all having over 10 votes in the AUR) from the > > AUR > > into [community]: > > > > ... , downgrade,... > > > > It's never been official in the past as that's per > definition partial upgrade when using anything > but the version from the repo. > We do not support partial upgrades and we > should not officially provide an application > whose very purpose is to deviate from the > current repo state to any arbitrary version in the > past. Understood. Scratch downgrade. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[aur-general] TU membership application
Hi all, My name is Jean Lucas, and I'm sending this email to submit my candidacy for Trusted User member. As per the latest TU bylaws, I'm being sponsored by both Alexander Rødseth and Sergej Pupykin. I've been an Arch Linux user since around a little before I registered my AUR account (January 2015, username "flacks" [1]), and I've recently had a few of my packages adopted into [community], namely "cage", "coturn", and "swaybg". I'm currently a computer science student with a particular interest in software engineering ranging from low-level (with a few contributions to projects like coreboot and postmarketOS) all the way up to web development (my current focus), and as such, would love to help maintain Arch's [community] repo in an official capacity to be part of the team that gives Arch users a robust, high-quality Linux software experience; as well as to help maintain, manage, and watch over the operation of the AUR and it's vast sea of software packaging recipes. If I were accepted to become a TU, I'd like to adopt and move the following packages (all having over 10 votes in the AUR) from the AUR into [community]: anydesk, downgrade, exercism, flutter, godot, itch, mattermost-desktop, nvm, reaper, spotify, teamviewer, thermald, unity-editor, and unityhub, for starters! Additionally, I would express my willingness to help co-maintain "firejail" (already in [community]), as its a project I have a higher interest in and contribute to occasionally; as well as to help get "ghidra" in good enough shape to propose moving it into [community], since I've had lots of fun building it [2], its a phenomenal piece of open-source software, and it'd be nice to have it officially supported by the Arch community (it also has a nice number of votes in the AUR)! Thank you for your time, and thank you to all who help make Arch a great OS! Best regards, Jean Lucas [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/flacks [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/log/?h=ghidra-git
