Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Thorsten Töpper]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:25:02 +0200
Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public  wrote:

...
> ttoepper:
> community/x86_64/confuse

Disowned the package.


pgpGqPWvbUH05.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Christian Hesse]

Christian Hesse  on Thu, 2016/10/20 14:42:
> Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public  on Thu,
> 2016/10/20 14:25:
> > f2fs-tools  
> 
> Looks like f2fs-tools has a hard dependency on libselinux now... So we have
> to move libselinux from AUR to [extra] if we want to keep f2fs support.

I've sent a patch upstream that allows to build without selinux support.
Let's wait for the result before rushing a decision.
-- 
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Best regards my address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*Chriscc -ox -xc - && ./x*/b/42*2-3)*42);}


pgpanBOE8nGsw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Felix Yan]

On 10/20/2016 08:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> fyan:
> community/any/soundfont-fluid
> multilib/x86_64/lib32-libxml2
> community/x86_64/reaver
> community/any/scrapy
> extra/x86_64/xapian-core
> multilib/x86_64/lib32-nss
> community/x86_64/wiznote
> community/x86_64/git-annex
> community/any/python2-pydot
> multilib/x86_64/lib32-glib2
> multilib/x86_64/lib32-libpng
> multilib/x86_64/lib32-gdk-pixbuf2
> community/x86_64/python2-matplotlib
> community/x86_64/python-matplotlib

Except for some lib32-foo (still working on), I have either bumped or
re-flagged with a reason. Sorry for the delay.

-- 
Regards,
Felix Yan



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Daniel Isenmann]

>
>
> ## Still required
> gdata-sharp
> gudev-sharp
>
>
Will be removed from the repo soon, because I decided to remove banshee
from the repo (reason here:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2016-October/028361.html
)

As I stated in the other mail, I won't move it to the AUR.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Daniel Isenmann]

2016-10-20 14:25 GMT+02:00 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public <
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org>:

> On 28.09.2016 15:37, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>
>
> daniel:
> extra/any/monodevelop
>
>
>
>
I'm on it. There is some compiing issues right now, that's the reason for
outdated. So don't move or orphan it, I will take care of this.

Cheers
Daniel

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On 20.10.2016 17:31, Levente Polyak wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 02:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> I'll start slowly dropping packages to AUR in a few weeks.
> 
> Well I'm not 100% sure but do you mean the already orphan packages or
> all not required packages?

I mean all non-required packages. I would have orphaned them already,
but archweb doesn't allow me to do that.

> Purely speaking about the "movable to AUR" (not the required) packages,
> but I would instantly pick up: avidemux, reaver, httpie, python-irc if
> they would be orphan.

Talk to their maintainers and adopt them if they don't want to maintain
them any more.

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-10-20 14:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> bpiotrowski:
> core/x86_64/ncurses
> core/x86_64/bash
> core/x86_64/readline

This trio requires some love that's currently reserved for fixing Boost
in staging (if I ever get more free time to debug it).

Bartłomiej



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Levente Polyak]

On 10/20/2016 02:25 PM, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 
> I'll start slowly dropping packages to AUR in a few weeks.
> 

Well I'm not 100% sure but do you mean the already orphan packages or
all not required packages?
Most likely there is lot of stuff they will be dropper later on... but I
think they should first be orphaned before we start doing that.

Purely speaking about the "movable to AUR" (not the required) packages,
but I would instantly pick up: avidemux, reaver, httpie, python-irc if
they would be orphan.

maybe some of the useful stuff from that list would be picked up by
others too?


> anthraxx:
> community/x86_64/powerdns-recursor
> community/any/gufw
> 

Ups, I forgot powerdns-recursor in the [testing] repository, the
package is in that repo for quite a while. will move when arriving at home.

gufw requires more work and new dependencies + testing. It was an orphan
package and I picked that up like aprox. 1.5 weeks ago to mark that i
start working on that topic. Will accelerate and to that asap.

cheers,
Levente



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Maxime Gauduin]

October 20 2016 3:49 PM, "Guillaume Alaux"  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase  
> wrote:
> 
>> openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild.
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae  wrote:
>>> On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> 
>> allan:
>> extra/x86_64/fakechroot
>>> Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot bug...).
> 
> I will take care of `openjfx` (hopefully soon) so please do not remove it.

I've been unable to build vbam since the last sfml update (though it's 
unrelated to sfml), and GTK 3.22 made things even worse. I've reached upstream 
in hope they can fix it quickly. If it takes too long, I'll demote it to AUR 
myself, we already have mgba which is cleaner, more accurate and faster anyway.

Also, unless someone wants to take over taskjuggler3, I'll demote it very soon.

Cheers,
-- 
Maxime

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Guillaume Alaux]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase  wrote:
> openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild.
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae  wrote:
>> On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>>
>>> allan:
>>> extra/x86_64/fakechroot
>>
>> Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot bug...).

I will take care of `openjfx` (hopefully soon) so please do not remove it.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

openvdb is updated as part of the boost rebuild.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Allan McRae  wrote:
> On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>
>> allan:
>> extra/x86_64/fakechroot
>
> Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot bug...).

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[jan]

jgc:
extra/x86_64/libxml++-docs
extra/x86_64/libxml++
extra/any/ttf-dejavu
extra/x86_64/libproxy
extra/x86_64/gnumeric


Please don't kill these. They still get active maintenance but I haven't 
gotten into these yet.


libxml++ is not out of date, the "new version" is a new ABI/API which is 
not compatible with any package that uses libxml++ at the moment. I can 
flag it as not out of date, but someone will flag it again tomorrow.


gnumeric is one version behind, I have a PKGBUILD ready (using the new 
gnome git stuff), but it doesn't build because gnumeric depends on 
deprecated features of gnome-common that have been removed over a year 
ago.


libproxy and ttf-dejavu are also one version behind, they will get 
updated soon.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Allan McRae]

On 20/10/16 22:25, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 
> allan:
> extra/x86_64/fakechroot

Updating this breaks the pacman testsuite (due to a fakechroot bug...).

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Christian Hesse]

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public  on Thu,
2016/10/20 14:25:
> f2fs-tools

Looks like f2fs-tools has a hard dependency on libselinux now... So we have
to move libselinux from AUR to [extra] if we want to keep f2fs support.

Tobias, are you going to handle this? Do you want me to do this? Any reason
not to do this?
-- 
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Best regards my address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*Chriscc -ox -xc - && ./x*/b/42*2-3)*42);}


pgpO99Zf8ePQG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On 28.09.2016 15:37, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I will look through the list in 2 weeks and start orphaning packages
> that do not have a reason for the holdup in the out of date message.

So it turns out archweb doesn't allow me to easily orphan packages the
way the AUR does so I've created a list. Feel free to adopt the packages
and ask the current maintainer to disown them.

I've created a list of packages that are required by others and of those
that could easily be moved to AUR. I've only looked if the required-by
list for each package is empty so if some of these are moved, more might
follow. I have also grouped some packages (like llvm) into one line.

I've also created a list of packages sorted by maintainers. This one is
created automatically, but it doesn't show any required-by data since
archweb doesn't list that in the package's JSON.

The manually created list might be out of date (I've started last week),
the automatic one is current.

The automatic list also contains packages that have a good reason for
being out of date (sometimes in the OOD message, sometimes not). If you
want to adopt any packages, please check the OOD reason first and check
if there has been a mail regarding the package in this thread.

I'll start slowly dropping packages to AUR in a few weeks.

Florian


# Manual list

## Still required
gdata-sharp
gudev-sharp
yp-tools
refind-efi
nasm
psmisc
geoip
scons
lib32-libxml2
libconfig
ocaml
confuse
enchant
krb5
netcdf
netcdf-fortran
netcdf-cxx
opencl-headers
gnu-efi-libs
sbcl
libc++
powerdns-recursor
python-html5lib
ttf-dejavu
xapian-core
f2fs-tools
protobuf
lib32-nss
python-django
ncurses
libproxy
python2-pydot
wxgtk
texlive-fontsextra
lib32-glib2
dkms
llvm
libc++abi
lib32-llvm
lib32-libpng
openvdb
monodevelop
java-openjfx
jack
lib32-gdk-pixbuf2
bash
readline


## moveable to AUR
avidemux
ypserv
python-irc
soundfont-fluid
syslog-ng
lib32-liblphobos
ovmf
libpgf
fvwm-crystal
hgsvn
hfsprogs
dvdisaster
firefox-firebug
supercollider
taskjuggler3
pd
reaver
xenstore
gap-packages
synthv1
samplv1
drumkv1
scrapy
bdf-unifont
wiznote
python-selenium
httpie
rosegarden
clawsker
git-annex
vbam
extremetuxracer
gcompris
intel-gpu-tools
gufw
gdc
gnumeric
qjackctl


# Automatic list

no maintainer:
extra/any/gdata-sharp
extra/any/gudev-sharp
multilib/x86_64/lib32-liblphobos
community/any/taskjuggler3
core/x86_64/krb5
community/x86_64/xe-guest-utilities
community/x86_64/xenstore


allan:
extra/x86_64/fakechroot


bpiotrowski:
core/x86_64/ncurses
core/x86_64/bash
core/x86_64/readline


remy:
extra/any/texlive-fontsextra


foutrelis:
community/x86_64/gcompris
extra/x86_64/llvm-libs
extra/x86_64/llvm
extra/x86_64/lldb
extra/x86_64/clang-tools-extra
extra/x86_64/llvm-ocaml
extra/x86_64/clang


seblu:
extra/any/dkms


schiv:
extra/x86_64/ardour
extra/x86_64/libffado
extra/x86_64/serd
extra/x86_64/sord
extra/x86_64/lilv
extra/x86_64/sratom
extra/x86_64/lv2


anthraxx:
community/x86_64/powerdns-recursor
community/any/gufw


bluewind:
community/x86_64/opencascade


ttoepper:
community/x86_64/confuse


lcarlier:
extra/any/opencl-headers
multilib/x86_64/lib32-llvm
multilib/x86_64/lib32-clang
multilib/x86_64/lib32-llvm-libs


thomas:
extra/any/ovmf


dan:
extra/any/python2-django
extra/any/python-django


tpowa:
extra/x86_64/gnu-efi-libs
extra/x86_64/f2fs-tools
extra/any/clawsker


jelle:
community/any/hgsvn
community/any/python2-html5lib
community/any/python-html5lib
community/x86_64/python-selenium
community/x86_64/python2-selenium


thestinger:
community/x86_64/libc++
community/any/httpie
community/x86_64/libc++abi
community/x86_64/intel-gpu-tools


alucryd:
community/x86_64/vbam-gtk
community/x86_64/vbam-wx
community/x86_64/vbam-sdl


daniel:
extra/any/monodevelop


fyan:
community/any/soundfont-fluid
multilib/x86_64/lib32-libxml2
community/x86_64/reaver
community/any/scrapy
extra/x86_64/xapian-core
multilib/x86_64/lib32-nss
community/x86_64/wiznote
community/x86_64/git-annex
community/any/python2-pydot
multilib/x86_64/lib32-glib2
multilib/x86_64/lib32-libpng
multilib/x86_64/lib32-gdk-pixbuf2
community/x86_64/python2-matplotlib
community/x86_64/python-matplotlib


dicebot:
community/x86_64/libgphobos-devel
community/x86_64/gdc


juergen:
extra/x86_64/geoip
extra/x86_64/sbcl


kkeen:
community/any/python-irc
community/any/python2-irc


muflone:
community/x86_64/hfsprogs


speps:
community/any/firefox-firebug
community/x86_64/supercollider
community/x86_64/pd
community/x86_64/synthv1
community/x86_64/samplv1
community/x86_64/drumkv1


jgc:
extra/x86_64/libxml++-docs
extra/x86_64/libxml++
extra/any/ttf-dejavu
extra/x86_64/libproxy
extra/x86_64/gnumeric


arojas:
community/x86_64/gap
community/x86_64/gap-data
community/x86_64/gap-doc
community/x86_64/gap-packages

tomegun:
extra/x86_64/ypserv
extra/x86_64/yp-tools


ronald:
extra/x86_64/libpgf
extra/x86_64/netcdf-fortran
extra/x86_64/netcdf-cxx
extra/x86_64/netcdf
extra/any/bdf-unifont
community/x86_64/extremetuxracer
extra/x86_64/efl-docs

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Antonio Rojas]

El Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:24:10 +0600, Ray Rashif via arch-dev-public
escribió:

> - liblo: this was flagged by me as a reminder based on a user's e-mail
> [1]
> - ardour: awaiting testing - libffado: compilation issues, didn't dig
> [2]
> .
> [2] Help appreciated in identifying the patch or at least the cause.

Fedora patch:

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libffado.git/tree/libffado-gcc6.patch

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Ray Rashif via arch-dev-public]

On 7 August 2016 at 03:19, Ray Rashif  wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I am guilty of leaving some packages out-of-date and some tickets
> sitting idle for a while now, and for being "intermittently inactive"
> since like forever.
> ...

I have gotten around to my LOODs, but please leave these alone:

- liblo: this was flagged by me as a reminder based on a user's e-mail [1]
- ardour: awaiting testing
- libffado: compilation issues, didn't dig [2]

> I'll disown any if I can't do them justice by the end of next week.

I realized this was and is, as identified by a friendly user in
another discussion, a very poor solution.

[1] To move to a "non-stable" github update, but help appreciated if
anyone has already done the "move".
[2] Help appreciated in identifying the patch or at least the cause.


--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On 06.08.2016 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> [1] https://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/long-out-of-date/

We still have tons of packages on that list. Please check if the list
includes any of your packages and either update or orphan them. You can
also check the out of date list in the dashboard which only displays
your packages.

I will look through the list in 2 weeks and start orphaning packages
that do not have a reason for the holdup in the out of date message. If
they are not adopted by someone else after that I will drop them to AUR.

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-08-22 22:06, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> I understood you both feel ignored on IRC and you decided to post here to 
> catch
> my attention. We cleared that up. Mailing list is our primary way of
> communication, that's fine.
> 
> «This week I'm going to rebuild dependent packages to disable Ceph support and
> then move Ceph itself to AUR».
> 
> What would happen If I was in vacation, or for some reason was not able to
> answer to this mail in a so short deadline? Imagine my reaction when I came
> back to «work»? I'm an active developer since years now, and I never see a
> developer treat another else to remove packages he maintains (even with MIA
> developers).

What would happen if you actually said anything anywhere about why Ceph
is out of date for at least 9 months? What if you would remember to put
a notice that you're going to be busy or just quit bouncer so it's clear
you're not present, instead of leaving it up on a one third of channels
you were usually sitting on? What would happen if you were on vacation,
but sent a one sentence heads up on arch-dev or arch-dev-public?

I, for one, know the answer: nothing would happen. We would just wait.
And with regard to reason why you didn't ever see any actions towards
effectively unmaintained packages is that we never cared enough. But
from what I see here, you like that status quo.

> When I asked Bartlomiej if that behavior was inappropriate on IRC, I got a 
> yes.
> This is why I posted here after the IRC discussion and asked to never do that
> again.
> 
> So, if you find removing others packages is an appropriate leverage for
> communicate, I need more explanation.

So is there actually anything we did not discuss here or on IRC already,
or you just want to keep it downhill from here? From my perspective, we
just waste the time stirring the pot. There are certainly better things
to do for both of us. (And besides, I did not say yes.)

Bartłomiej



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On jeu., 2016-08-18 at 11:29 +0200, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 17.08.2016 23:30, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Is that really not enough?
> > Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer
> > your help, but you don't send a rocket on the public list.
> 
> I'm not sure why you bring this up again here since I was under the
> impression we cleared up the misunderstanding an hour before on IRC.
Florian,

I understood you both feel ignored on IRC and you decided to post here to catch
my attention. We cleared that up. Mailing list is our primary way of
communication, that's fine.

«This week I'm going to rebuild dependent packages to disable Ceph support and
then move Ceph itself to AUR».

What would happen If I was in vacation, or for some reason was not able to
answer to this mail in a so short deadline? Imagine my reaction when I came
back to «work»? I'm an active developer since years now, and I never see a
developer treat another else to remove packages he maintains (even with MIA
developers).

When I asked Bartlomiej if that behavior was inappropriate on IRC, I got a yes.
This is why I posted here after the IRC discussion and asked to never do that
again.

So, if you find removing others packages is an appropriate leverage for
communicate, I need more explanation.


Regards,

-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42
GPG: 0x2072D77A

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On 17.08.2016 23:30, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> Is that really not enough?
> Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer
> your help, but you don't send a rocket on the public list.

I'm not sure why you bring this up again here since I was under the
impression we cleared up the misunderstanding an hour before on IRC.

As discussed on IRC we were under the impression that you monitor IRC
traffic, but chose to ignore our requests for reasons unknown. I
especially believed that since you just stopped replying during a
discussion we had in May and you never picked up the discussion again. I
believe I have explained this sufficiently in the discussion that
happened in the hour prior to you sending this mail, but if you feel
that I should explain the reasoning again, please tell me.

>> > This kind of threat is inappropriate.
>> 
>> Lack of communication on your side is inappropriate. If there is a good
>> reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
>> of letting it decay.
> 
> I don't see much communication about why packages are not updated. Why are you
> asking me think others don't do? Why are you targeting me where is this so 
> much
> package more out-of-date ?

As explained on IRC, I got asked by a user why ceph is not being
upgraded and I knew Bartłomiej tried to get in touch with you about ceph
before. When I asked him if he has heard anything from you, he denied.

Given my own history of unsuccessful communication with you (see my
first paragraphs), we looked into other ways of dealing with the problem
of neglected packages. We started with ceph since that was the reason
for thinking about this again.

Nothing of this has ever been intended to be a threat or targeted at you
specifically. This is really just a big misunderstanding as I tried to
explained on IRC and in the first paragraphs of this mail.

Also please understand that we did try to contact you via IRC and since
that didn't work we expected you not the care about the package any more
(again, see above). Since we don't take action without a mail first
Bartłomiej sent this mail. To my surprise you reacted, although not the
way I would have expected.

Granted, I could have probably sent you an email when you dropped out of
the discussion back in May, but I didn't expect you to simply vanish
from IRC, while keeping your bouncer online, without telling anyone.
Sorry about that.

Do you understand what happened here and why? If not, please tell me
what exactly you don't understand fully so I can explain it further.

Florian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Allan McRae]

On 18/08/16 05:52, Christian Hesse wrote:
> Unflag the package, then flag it yourself with a comment of the details. At
> least devs can find the information there.

As a "bonus", unflagged then reflagging makes the package look as if it
has only been out-of-date for 1 day...

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On mer., 2016-08-17 at 21:35 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2016-08-17 21:20, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> > 
> Even without my question on IRC, you at least got out-of-date
> notification and Florian's message about rotten packages.
I see Florian message (good initiative btw). It makes me review my flagged
packages and be happy to not have "more than one year" flagged packages.
It has remembered me that I have Ceph to update. I decided after that to
prioritize packaging updates over devops in the next weeks in order to fix this
(one package).

>  There is also a bug report stating that package is unusable, created in
> February. 
The jerasure code was not enabled in this package. It never works, the rest of
ceph yes. I've 300 hypervisors running Arch with this version. I see no big
deal.

> Is that really not enough?
Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer
your help, but you don't send a rocket on the public list.

«Seb, I think we are providing a bad user experience to not updating Ceph since
so long» would be a better approach.
I get a user offering his help by mail few days ago about docker 1.12. A
stranger, not a guy I work with like you.

Moreover, I got the same issue with e2fsprogs (not a package like ceph used by
few braves) recently. Package was not updated since ~1 year and it prevented me
from upgrading my raid array to 30TB.
I sent a nice mail to the maintainer and asked him if I can upgrade the
package. He was ok. I did it[1]. End of story.

> 
> > 
> > This kind of threat is inappropriate.
> 
> Lack of communication on your side is inappropriate. If there is a good
> reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
> of letting it decay.

I don't see much communication about why packages are not updated. Why are you
asking me think others don't do? Why are you targeting me where is this so much
package more out-of-date ?

You sent a resignation mail 1 year and half ago, since then I never see you as
active and not communication about that. That's lack of communication.

I'm spending enough hours by week to works on that projet to not have to
receive this kind of direct attack.
I say it again, this kind of threat are not acceptable between us. Please never
do that again.


[1] https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/e2f
sprogs=0da897c5e716cd201fc31307991cf875c2c90abd

-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42
GPG: 0x2072D77A

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:52:40 PM CEST you wrote:
> > Since I'm running into this with opencascade myself: Where would that be?
> > Should it be posted to this list?
> 
> Unflag the package, then flag it yourself with a comment of the details. At
> least devs can find the information there.

Good idea, thanks!

Florian

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Christian Hesse]

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public  on Wed,
2016/08/17 21:40:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35:02 PM CEST Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> > If there is a good
> > reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
> > of letting it decay.  
> 
> Since I'm running into this with opencascade myself: Where would that be? 
> Should it be posted to this list?

Unflag the package, then flag it yourself with a comment of the details. At
least devs can find the information there.
-- 
main(a){char*c=/*Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/*Best regards my address:*/=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/*Chriscc -ox -xc - && ./x*/b/42*2-3)*42);}


pgpnvNFmVrBL1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35:02 PM CEST Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> If there is a good
> reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
> of letting it decay.

Since I'm running into this with opencascade myself: Where would that be? 
Should it be posted to this list?

If so: opencascade is currently not being updated because freecad won't build 
with opencascade 7.0. freecad-git has patches for the problems, but I haven't 
yet had the time to look into backporting them.

Florian

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-08-17 21:20, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> I didn't get your message on #archlinux-devops. You really didn't
> find any other way to talk to me?

Even without my question on IRC, you at least got out-of-date
notification and Florian's message about rotten packages. There is also
a bug report stating that package is unusable, created in February. Is
that really not enough?

> This kind of threat is inappropriate.

Lack of communication on your side is inappropriate. If there is a good
reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
of letting it decay.

Bartłomiej





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Sébastien Luttringer]

On mer., 2016-08-17 at 20:52 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2016-08-06 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > 
> > 
> While I'm no saint either, Ceph package is out of date since November
> last year and received only minor upgrades despite newer releases
> availability. 2 weeks ago I asked Sebastien on #archlinux-devops why he
> didn't upgrade it despite his activity with other packages to no avail.

I didn't get your message on #archlinux-devops. You really didn't find any
other way to talk to me?

I have a working package since few weeks with the latest version. I needs to
check again some things. 

> 
> This week I'm going to rebuild dependent packages to disable Ceph
> support and then move Ceph itself to AUR.
> 
> 
What is this ? Seriously! A blackmail to upgrade package.

ceph was updated 8 months ago. We have flagged packages built in 2013.

You don't even know why I postpone the upgrade.

This kind of threat is inappropriate.


-- 
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42
GPG: 0x2072D77A

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Bartłomiej Piotrowski]

On 2016-08-06 10:18, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have quite a few packages that are marked out of date for more than a
> month[1]. Some of them even for a year or two. You can also view a list
> of your own packages via the link on the developer dashboard under the
> heading "Developer Reports".
> 
> Can everyone please either update their packages or explain here why
> each package is not being updated? If it's due to lack of interest,
> please consider orphaning it and post the names of the packages here so
> they can be adopted.
> 
> If a package is flagged incorrectly, please unflag it.
> 
> [1] https://www.archlinux.org/devel/reports/long-out-of-date/
> 
> Florian
> 

While I'm no saint either, Ceph package is out of date since November
last year and received only minor upgrades despite newer releases
availability. 2 weeks ago I asked Sebastien on #archlinux-devops why he
didn't upgrade it despite his activity with other packages to no avail.

This week I'm going to rebuild dependent packages to disable Ceph
support and then move Ceph itself to AUR.

Bartłomiej



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Gaetan Bisson]

[2016-08-06 16:10:04 +0300] Jerome Leclanche:
> > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/firefox-firebug/
> 
> We shouldn't really be packaging Firefox extensions...

It really makes no difference whether it's a browser extension or an
ordinary piece of software: we simply shouldn't keep packages in our
repos that we aren't able to update in a timely manner.

-- 
Gaetan

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Ray Rashif via arch-dev-public]

Hi all

I am guilty of leaving some packages out-of-date and some tickets
sitting idle for a while now, and for being "intermittently inactive"
since like forever.

It's all caused by an initial breakage of my Linux system due to a
hardware issue a year ago and of course RL (so I have not yet managed
the time to reconfigure my system to my liking, while continue to
using Windows to my disliking). Although I can't put a date I still
have to get back full-time on my Arch machine because my daily
productivity has gone down and I need to boost back up.

Nevertheless, I still use these packages whenever I boot into Arch,
and have received some user input towards updating them which I have
promised to incorporate. I'll disown any if I can't do them justice by
the end of next week.

On 6 August 2016 at 19:10, Jerome Leclanche  wrote:
>> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/firefox-firebug/
>
> We shouldn't really be packaging Firefox extensions...
> J. Leclanche
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Antonio Rojas  wrote:
>> Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> Can everyone please either update their packages or explain here why
>>> each package is not being updated? If it's due to lack of interest,
>>> please consider orphaning it and post the names of the packages here so
>>> they can be adopted.
>>>
>>> If a package is flagged incorrectly, please unflag it.
>>>
>>
>> +1, would also be good if devs/TUs who have been inactive for some months
>> could give us an update on their status



-- 
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Jerome Leclanche]

> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/firefox-firebug/

We shouldn't really be packaging Firefox extensions...
J. Leclanche


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Antonio Rojas  wrote:
> Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Can everyone please either update their packages or explain here why
>> each package is not being updated? If it's due to lack of interest,
>> please consider orphaning it and post the names of the packages here so
>> they can be adopted.
>>
>> If a package is flagged incorrectly, please unflag it.
>>
>
> +1, would also be good if devs/TUs who have been inactive for some months
> could give us an update on their status

Re: [arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

[Antonio Rojas]

Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Can everyone please either update their packages or explain here why
> each package is not being updated? If it's due to lack of interest,
> please consider orphaning it and post the names of the packages here so
> they can be adopted.
> 
> If a package is flagged incorrectly, please unflag it.
> 

+1, would also be good if devs/TUs who have been inactive for some months 
could give us an update on their status