[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz --- Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:05:10 +0100 Thorsten Toepper wrote: > Whether the votes happens in the AUR web interface or on a separate > private mailing list is unimportant for the real process I agree, just > at the moment it's the AUR webinterface and the second point is

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 at 22:05:10, Thorsten Toepper wrote: > [...] > Whether the votes happens in the AUR web interface or on a separate > private mailing list is unimportant for the real process I agree, just > at the moment it's the AUR webinterface and the second point is simply > not too well

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On 18.01.2018 22:11, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 01/18/2018 04:05 PM, Thorsten Toepper wrote: >> First of all: Congratulations for becoming a TU, you should have applied >> sooner so I could've given you my "yes". :-) > > Thanks! :) > >> Rephrasing the bylaw to something like >> >>

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On 01/18/2018 04:05 PM, Thorsten Toepper wrote: > First of all: Congratulations for becoming a TU, you should have applied > sooner so I could've given you my "yes". :-) Thanks! :) > Rephrasing the bylaw to something like > > "performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR >

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On 18.01.2018 02:11, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 01/17/2018 06:18 PM, Thorsten Toepper wrote: >> I'm no longer a TU so I can't see how active both speps and faidoc have >> been regarding participation in the votes. Yet the TU-Bylaws are pretty >> strict and given that Bluewind/Florian

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:32:46PM +0100, Bennett Piater wrote: > > > On 01/18/2018 09:25 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:24:04PM +0100, Bennett Piater wrote: > > Except, as noted, that "major feature" doesn't work at all... > > Doesn't it? > It appeared to

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On 01/18/2018 09:25 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:24:04PM +0100, Bennett Piater wrote: > Except, as noted, that "major feature" doesn't work at all... Doesn't it? It appeared to work when I tried it, and that was this morning... Cheers, Bennett -- GPG

Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

On 18.01.2018 01:43, Balló György via aur-general wrote: > On 18.01.2018 00.18, Thorsten Toepper via aur-general wrote: >> Therefore the second requirement, to NOT do any special action on the >> AUR requiring TU privileges is not fulfilled, as participating in >> votes is exactly one of these TU

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:24:04PM +0100, Bennett Piater wrote: > This doesn't take care of locking on inactivity though, which is the other > major feature of xss-lock. > That said, a short implementation may look as follows:

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:24:04PM +0100, Bennett Piater wrote: > This doesn't take care of locking on inactivity though, which is the other > major feature of xss-lock. > Except, as noted, that "major feature" doesn't work at all... Alad signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

This doesn't take care of locking on inactivity though, which is the other major feature of xss-lock. Cheers, Bennett -- GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > Alad Wenter via aur-general writes: > > > If you use polkit and acpid, a "simple" alternative is to use > > systemd-inhibit, and run actions based on acpid events. Not sure there's > > a ready

Re: [aur-general] Wrong AUR Build file

Yes you would have that responsibility or maybe you could find some one else to maintain it instead. if the package is broken and you don't plan on maintaining it, that's when I would send a deletion request. Any one is free re upload the fixed package again in future. On 18 January 2018 at

Re: [aur-general] Wrong AUR Build file

On 01/18/2018 03:05 PM, Panayotis Katsaloulis via aur-general wrote: > Picking up the package doesn't also have the great responsibility of > maintaining the package? :-o Is it very problematic to do so? I assume you're interested in the software, so why not maintain it while you are at it? --

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On 01/18/2018 03:02 PM, Pierre Neidhardt via aur-general wrote: > > It's only 4 commits since 0.3.0, two of them being critical fixes. > I could backport those two commits (just tried: no conflict); it feels > needlessly pedantic however, compared to using "master" straight away. > > I've

Re: [aur-general] Wrong AUR Build file

Picking up the package doesn't also have the great responsibility of maintaining the package? :-o Στις Πεμ, 18 Ιαν, 2018 at 10:02 ΜΜ, ο/η Morgan Adamiec via aur-general έγραψε: > I would probably leave a comment over emailing directly. > If you get no response

Re: [aur-general] Wrong AUR Build file

I would probably leave a comment over emailing directly. If you get no response after a while I would then send an orphan/deletion request detailing the problem and pick up the package myself and fix the problems. On 18 January 2018 at 19:55, Panayotis Katsaloulis via aur-general

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

It's only 4 commits since 0.3.0, two of them being critical fixes. I could backport those two commits (just tried: no conflict); it feels needlessly pedantic however, compared to using "master" straight away. I've contacted the developer, see if he replies within a few days. If not, I'll go

[aur-general] Wrong AUR Build file

Hello people Newbie here in Arch Linux. I have a question, which I didn't find in the documentation. What is the proposed way to inform about an AUR build file containing errors? Especially if I e-mailed the maintainer with no response? Thank you!

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

Alad Wenter via aur-general writes: > If you use polkit and acpid, a "simple" alternative is to use > systemd-inhibit, and run actions based on acpid events. Not sure there's > a ready implementation with X support in mind. Could you detail this? How do you set it

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On January 18, 2018 7:26:33 PM GMT+01:00, Pierre Neidhardt via aur-general wrote: > >The 100%-cpu issue should be fixed upstream on master (and thus also in >the -git package). >I've mentioned this on the wiki: > Why not simply backporting it via a patch file then?

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 07:26:33PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > The 100%-cpu issue should be fixed upstream on master (and thus also in the > -git package). > I've mentioned this on the wiki: > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Power_management#xss-lock > Since that's a fairly

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

The 100%-cpu issue should be fixed upstream on master (and thus also in the -git package). I've mentioned this on the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Power_management#xss-lock I'll ask the author if he's still maintaining it. I might consider a fork otherwise. -- Pierre Neidhardt

Re: [aur-general] Moving xss-lock to community

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:59:49AM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt via aur-general wrote: > > Seems fairly popular, plus it's useful to lock the screen on sleep > without systemd. I realize I'm somewhat late with this response, but upstream hasn't updated their project in years and the release has