On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:01 Sam S. sml...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that we do keep the Git repositories of deleted packages,
so if anybody wants to maintain the package later, he can always clone
the repository of the deleted package, fix the package and simply push
it afterwards
Can you
Note that we do keep the Git repositories of deleted packages,
so if anybody wants to maintain the package later, he can always clone
the repository of the deleted package, fix the package and simply push
it afterwards
Can you give some details on that?
For example the libtiff4 package
Le 12 août 2015 07:51:28 GMT+02:00, Justin Dray jus...@dray.be a écrit :
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 15:37 Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote:
In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers
for; in the mean time, I'm looking after
Em 12-08-2015 06:05, Lukas Fleischer escreveu:
Maybe you could at least add yourself as a co-maintainer for now. Or if
you are really *actively* trying to find new maintainers, it probably
wouldn't hurt if you were listed as a maintainer until you find
somebody.
I had some dependencies issues
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Lukas Fleischer
lfleisc...@archlinux.org wrote:
Wikipedia defines orphan as
[...] a child whose parents are dead or have abandoned them
permanently
...but new parents may want to adopt them, if given the opportunity.
Deleting *long-time* orphaned
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:05:08 +0200
Lukas Fleischer lfleisc...@archlinux.org wrote:
I consider this a slight abuse of the orphan/disown functionality.
Oh, and I also wanted to point out that this is just one use-case. There are
others, such as the v8 package that was recently dropped from
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:05:08 +0200
Lukas Fleischer lfleisc...@archlinux.org wrote:
I consider this a slight abuse of the orphan/disown functionality.
Wikipedia defines orphan as
[...] a child whose parents are dead or have abandoned them
permanently.
In my opinion, orphan packages
So maybe we need to improve the way changing maintainership
works. Having a Give up for adoption button (that keeps the current
maintainer while allowing anybody to adopt the package) in addition to
Disown is one possibility.
What is the point of the disown button then, if it does the same
I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it
badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it.
David Kaylor dpkay...@gmail.com
Wrote in message:
- Second, uploading something to AUR4 then immediately orphaning it is
stupid. Why not just hold onto it for a while and look for co-maintainers,
or a new maintainer? By orphaning, you just became the thinned part of
the herd.
Just
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:30 AM, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Kyrias deleted compiz-gtk-standalone.
You will no longer receive notifications about this package.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:32 AM, not...@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Kyrias deleted compiz-xfce.
You will no longer receive
A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them though ;-)
Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com
Wrote in message:
Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good
working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared
to the last release on AUR3), know are used by at least some users,
and then orphaned so some
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas aro...@archlinux.org wrote:
Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com
Wrote in message:
Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good
working order (and made an enhancement to one of the packages compared
to the last release on
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:36:53AM +, Justin Dray wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas aro...@archlinux.org wrote:
Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com
Wrote in message:
Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good
working order (and made an
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Pagani bruno.pag...@ens-lyon.org
wrote:
Well, the first email states Kyrias did this…
Le 11 août 2015 10:15:42 GMT+02:00, David Phillips dbphillip...@gmail.com
a écrit :
A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them
though ;-)
Well, the first email states Kyrias did this…
Le 11 août 2015 10:15:42 GMT+02:00, David Phillips dbphillip...@gmail.com a
écrit :
A certain TU went around deleting orphaned stuff… won't name them
though ;-)
Am 11.08.2015 um 14:08 schrieb Simon Hanna:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:36:53AM +, Justin Dray wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:09 Antonio Rojas aro...@archlinux.org wrote:
Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com
Wrote in message:
Just a query: Why were packages i added to AUR4, ensured were in good
On 11 Aug 2015, at 3:48 pm +0200, Johannes Dewender wrote:
[snip]
I uploaded both to AUR3 and also to AUR4.
I maintain the free branch, because I think this is the better variant.
Having the original on AUR would be good, so I also updloaded these, but
I personally don't want to maintain
Second, uploading something to AUR4 then immediately orphaning it is
stupid. Why not just hold onto it for a while and look for co-maintainers,
or a new maintainer? By orphaning, you just became the thinned part of
the herd.
Well, if it's orphaned another potential maintainer who comes across
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Lukas Fleischer lfleisc...@archlinux.org
wrote:
Hi,
There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration
process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of
view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e. technical
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 15:37 Rob McCathie korr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote:
In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers
for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are
listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:23 PM, David Phillips dbphillip...@gmail.com
wrote:
I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it
badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it.
Exactly.
Hi,
There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration
process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of
view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e. technical
discussion without attacking anybody personally).
As already mentioned a couple of
Several notification emails were sent directly rather than via aur-general.
Yes, but that isn't the same thing. Being subscribed to the list would
(should?) have made people aware of most of the issues surrounding the
migration, including the motivations behind it and the expectations of
On 12/08/15 13:49, Doug Newgard wrote:
In my case, I have some that I'm actively trying to get maintainers
for; in the mean time, I'm looking after them even though they are
listed as being orphaned. Is this not to be allowed now? Should all
orphan packages in the official repos be deleted,
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 05:16:03 +0200
Lukas Fleischer lfleisc...@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi,
There seems to be quite some confusion about the package migration
process and about package deletion. I would like to clarify my point of
view. Hopefully it serves as a basis for discussion (i.e.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:24 David Phillips dbphillip...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose some may subscribe to the view that if someone wants it
badly enough, they'll submit, maintain and stick with it.
In my case, I uploaded a perfectly working package for LSI raid
controllers, but someone commented
Thanks for clarifying your point of view Lukas. I think some AUR
maintainers are out-of-the-loop on the migration issues, for one reason or
another. I suspect some simply weren't subscribed to this list over the
last few months.
Several notification emails were sent directly rather than via
29 matches
Mail list logo
