FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-16-2010, 04:18 PM
Thayer Williams
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher
<hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> It's not possible for me to change it, hence this mail. Seems I forgot
> to mention this..

I can make the update...the question is do we want the maintainer at
the top or bottom of the list. I've always appended the maintainer to
the bottom, but I know some folks feel it should be the other way
around.
 
Old 01-16-2010, 04:20 PM
Ionut Biru
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On 01/16/2010 07:18 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher
<hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:

It's not possible for me to change it, hence this mail. Seems I forgot
to mention this..


I can make the update...the question is do we want the maintainer at
the top or bottom of the list. I've always appended the maintainer to
the bottom, but I know some folks feel it should be the other way
around.


i prefer top too.

--
Ionut
 
Old 01-16-2010, 04:31 PM
Thayer Williams
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2010 07:18 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Philipp Überbacher
>> <hollunder@lavabit.com> *wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not possible for me to change it, hence this mail. Seems I forgot
>>> to mention this..
>>
>> I can make the update...the question is do we want the maintainer at
>> the top or bottom of the list. *I've always appended the maintainer to
>> the bottom, but I know some folks feel it should be the other way
>> around.
>
> i prefer top too.

Top it is...how does this look?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_th e_AUR
 
Old 01-16-2010, 04:40 PM
Thorsten Töpper
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:31:14 -0800
Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> i prefer top too.
>
> Top it is...how does this look?
>
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_th e_AUR

Looks good to me, hence the change has also be done to the PKGBUILD
Prototype above, as I have currently an insecure connection I don't
want to log into the wiki and change it myself.

- --
Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/
Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iFYEARELAAYFAktR+ioACgkQOeTxfyla+/SryQDfVRxFjX6KhMsp6g9/yL5WabLC
c7OrK1SrpBwkBwDgkRUVLj75mkcbqe4H1gWm6dE7y3incuQCr5 CFzw==
=KNC5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 01-16-2010, 04:42 PM
Ionut Biru
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On 01/16/2010 07:31 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:


i prefer top too.


Top it is...how does this look?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_th e_AUR


perfect

--
Ionut
 
Old 01-17-2010, 01:58 AM
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

Am Sa, 16.01.2010, 17:32 schrieb Thayer Williams:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/16/2010 06:12 PM, hollunder@lavabit.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Please have a look here:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_th e_AUR
>>>
>>> It says:
>>> Please add a comment line to the top of your PKGBUILD file that
>>> follows this format. Remember to disguise your email to protect against
>>> spam: # Contributor: Your Name<address at domain dot com>
>>>
>>> This is wrong and should read: # Maintainer: Your Name<address at
>>> domain dot com>
>>>
>> you are correct.
>
> It's a half-truth isn't it? I mean if if is the first time a package
> is being submitted to the AUR it *should* be Contributor and not
> Maintainer. The Maintainer should only be appended to the list if
> replacing an existing PKGBUILD. At least that was my understanding of
> it.
>
Hi all,

My two cents:
I think this "maintainer" and "contributor" stuff goes the wrong way and -
for me - it does not make much sense how it is now.
First I want to point out how I see it and how I understood it when I
started using Arch. Adding a PKGBUILD to the AUR is a "loose" contribution
to the Arch community (that does _not_ mean that one has no responsibility
for the PKGBUILD). You made a PKGBUILD for yourself and think that someone
out there might also find it useful. So you add it to the AUR as a
community contributor. A "maintainer" is someone who actually maintains a
binary package and/or has a trustworthy state, ie at least a TU.
Now to the status-quo. I see no sense at all adding a person to the
PKGBUILD who submitted it some years ago, because this person has nothing
more to do with the "new" PKGBUILD, even if it hasn't changed. Perhaps he
doesn't use Arch anymore. So why add him as a contributor? Only for the
credits? For example a package like the "kernel26-n130" one. I took the
config from the "kernel26-nc10" package, because it's almost the same
hardware (ok, I made some changes); the PKGBUILD itself is built upon the
stock kernel one. If it were for the credits then I'd had to add all the
persons who contributed these packages, though they have nothing to do
with this particular PKGBUILD. From this point of view taking care of all
the credits would go much too far and blurs the idea behind a
"contributor".
Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the
responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or
more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do
with it?
However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with
mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it.

AMEN
 
Old 01-17-2010, 06:35 AM
Thayer Williams
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, <vla@uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the
> responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or
> more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do
> with it?
> However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with
> mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it.

I don't see this as an issue that's worthy of debate so I won't
comment much on the matter myself. Others may disagree...

Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due.
IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still
deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it.
I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers"
within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if
it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a
dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their
contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.

Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries
Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance
of said PKGBUILD and/or binary
 
Old 01-17-2010, 02:26 PM
vlad
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

Hello,

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, <vla@uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> > Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the
> > responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or
> > more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do
> > with it?
> > However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with
> > mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it.
>
> I don't see this as an issue that's worthy of debate so I won't
> comment much on the matter myself. Others may disagree...
Hehe, me neither.

> Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due.
> IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still
> deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it.
> I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers"
> within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if
> it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a
> dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their
> contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.
>
> Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries
> Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance
> of said PKGBUILD and/or binary
I find this maintainer/contributor stuff and differentiation redundant
and confusing.

--
 
Old 01-18-2010, 10:57 PM
Philipp Überbacher
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

Excerpts from vlad's message of Sun Jan 17 16:26:33 +0100 2010:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:58 PM, <vla@uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> > > Further when someone disowns a PKGBUILD for some reason, he also drops the
> > > responsibility for this package. So what's the reason of adding two or
> > > more persons to the PKGBUILD who actually don't have anything more to do
> > > with it?
> > > However, I think the most easy and clear way is to add a single name with
> > > mail address to the PKGBUILD - this means this person is in charge of it.
> >
> > I don't see this as an issue that's worthy of debate so I won't
> > comment much on the matter myself. Others may disagree...
> Hehe, me neither.
>
> > Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due.
> > IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still
> > deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it.
> > I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers"
> > within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if
> > it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a
> > dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their
> > contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.
> >
> > Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries
> > Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance
> > of said PKGBUILD and/or binary
> I find this maintainer/contributor stuff and differentiation redundant
> and confusing.
>
For completeness sake, what started this was this package maintained by
donvla http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=1137
 
Old 01-19-2010, 06:01 AM
Florian Friesdorf
 
Default mistake in packaging guidelines

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:57:42AM +0100, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:35:59PM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> > > Personally, I feel it's important to give credit where credit is due.
> > > IMO it doesn't matter whether someone orphans a PKGBUILD, they still
> > > deserve credit for their initial efforts in creating/maintaining it.
> > > I also believe it's valid for non-TUs to be considered "maintainers"
> > > within the AUR. They are in effect maintaining the package, even if
> > > it's only a build script. Should the package later be adopted by a
> > > dev/TU then the initial maintainer should be credited for their
> > > contribution. That's just good business in my opinion.

+1

> > > Maintainer == current custodian of the PKGBUILD and/or binaries
> > > Contributor == one who has previously contributed to the maintenance
> > > of said PKGBUILD and/or binary

This is also what is meanwhile reflected by:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Submitting_Packages_to_th e_AUR

--
Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net>
GPG FPR: EA5C F2B4 FBBB BA65 3DCD E8ED 82A1 6522 4A1F 4367
Jabber/XMPP: flo@chaoflow.net
OTR FPR: 9E191746 213321FE C896B37D 24B118C0 31785700
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org