HI guys,
next time please ask before bumping a quite complicated package directly to
next major release.

Also keep in mind to put it to testing first and not directly to extra.
tdb can be used externally now, i'm rebuilding it now.

greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
> HI guys,
> next time please ask before bumping a quite complicated package directly to
> next major release.
>
> Also keep in mind to put it to testing first and not directly to extra.
> tdb can be used externally now, i'm rebuilding it now.

To all the new guys on the list- this is especially sad considering
this package was just brought up on this development list and tpowa
was quite clearly active in the discussion. I know you guys think it
is cool to have the latest and greatest in the repos, but us old guys
do things the way we do for a reason. *You need to ask the maintainer
before touching a package*, plain and simple. Don't version bump
without doing this first (especially a major version bump!) and at
least giving ample time for a response. Just because a package isn't
in [core] doesn't mean it is easy to stay on top of.

Thank you Tobias for bringing this up; I've noticed it with more than
just this package.

-Dan

2010/3/2, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
> Thank you Tobias for bringing this up; I've noticed it with more than
> just this package.

OK, then I will stay away from packages that are not mine.
Let's keep up out of date packages!
Thanks a lot for your rant.


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Giovanni Scafora <giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 2010/3/2, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
>> *Thank you Tobias for bringing this up; I've noticed it with more than
>> *just this package.
>
> OK, then I will stay away from packages that are not mine.
> Let's keep up out of date packages!
> Thanks a lot for your rant.

I wasn't trying to call anyone out (I didn't even look at the commit
logs!), I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic here. Only
that you let the maintainer know you were thinking about doing
something to his package so he has a chance to 1) do it himself or 2)
tell you why he was holding off on it.

If we have packages that are weeks/months old, those are much bigger
candidates for rebuilding or dropping. Samba was only about 3 hours
old, so calling it "out of date" is maybe a bit of a stretch, more
like "out of hour".

-Dan

2010/3/2, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
> I wasn't trying to call anyone out (I didn't even look at the commit
> logs!), I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic here. Only
> that you let the maintainer know you were thinking about doing
> something to his package so he has a chance to 1) do it himself or 2)
> tell you why he was holding off on it.
>
> If we have packages that are weeks/months old, those are much bigger
> candidates for rebuilding or dropping. Samba was only about 3 hours
> old, so calling it "out of date" is maybe a bit of a stretch, more
> like "out of hour".

I am being serious, no sarcastic here.
Samba package was not old only because before I've rebuilt it to the
3.4.6 version, if not it was (old) to 3.4.5 version.
BTW, no problem, I will stay away from packages that are not mine.


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it

Am 02.03.2010 14:47, schrieb Giovanni Scafora:
> 2010/3/2, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
>> Thank you Tobias for bringing this up; I've noticed it with more than
>> just this package.
>
> OK, then I will stay away from packages that are not mine.
> Let's keep up out of date packages!
> Thanks a lot for your rant.

Obviously this is counter-productive. There are lots of packages one can
just "bump" without looking at them further. Samba is not one of them,
as is mplayer (just to mention a few).

We should instead introduce a comment into those PKGBUILDs right above
the pkgver= to prevent people from messing with them. Something like:

# MAINTAINER INFO: don't upgrade
or
# MAINTAINER INFO: version x.y.z, do not upgrade on x or y change

The latter case would cover all samba problem, as anyone who isn't the
primary maintainer will see that if x or y changes, he should not
upgrade it.

Am Dienstag, 2. März 2010 17:02:02 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
> We should instead introduce a comment into those PKGBUILDs right above
> the pkgver= to prevent people from messing with them. Something like:

Or people could just talk to each other. We probably all have jabber, email
etc., or at least send a mail to this list. If the package is orphaned or the
maintainer is temporary unavailable just send a mail to the list.

I don't see any rant a reason for being sarcastic here. Team work simply
doesn't work without communication.

If a package needs some special treatment it should be noted within the
PKGBUILD; but this doesn't replace communication. There are a lot of reasons
why a maintainer doesn't want to bump a package right now.

--

Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre