On 01/03/10 10:29, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:

Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently.
Now it is svn-r70.
AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In
additional, wrong dependencies.

unless the PKGBUILD is broken or you need anything change(except the
version bump). PKGBUILDs for pkgnames ending with -svn, -git, -hg, -cvs,
etc. doesn't need to be updated, because it's done automatically at
build-time.

Let alone the svn package.

But I have a release version 0.1.1, while
ibus-sogoupycc (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31920)
is still using the svn r17.

Last Updated: (unknown)
First Submitted: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:41:31 +0000
Is this long to you?

Let alone the wrong dependencies, see the description, "bus-sogoupycc is an
unoffical Sogou pinyin cloud client on ibus platform.".
Miss "i" at first, it should be "ibus"

Obviously an irresponsible maintainer.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com
> <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently.
> > Now it is svn-r70.
> > AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In
> > additional, wrong dependencies.
> >
> > Isn't be good for a software owner to maintain its AUR package?
> >
>
> svn packages should update itself when running makepkg to the latest
> upstream version, no need to make such a change in the PKGBUILD. Also
> February 25th is only 4 days ago, that doesn't seem very long ago to
> me.
>
> Ronald
>

These PKGBUILDs are broken.

I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake
build system.

I need to update the Dependencies and build script.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Nathan Wayde <kumyco@konnichi.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/10 10:29, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Recently, I have made great change and updated frequently.
>> Now it is svn-r70.
>> AUR is svn-r25, which is unstable and lack of many new features. In
>> additional, wrong dependencies.
>>
>> unless the PKGBUILD is broken or you need anything change(except the
> version bump). PKGBUILDs for pkgnames ending with -svn, -git, -hg, -cvs,
> etc. doesn't need to be updated, because it's done automatically at
> build-time.
>

On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:

These PKGBUILDs are broken.

I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use cmake
build system.

I need to update the Dependencies and build script.



i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you
only posted yesterday a comment.


If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan
since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)


--
Ionut

I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait another
week.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> These PKGBUILDs are broken.
>>
>> I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to use
>> cmake
>> build system.
>>
>> I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
>>
>>
> i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds you only
> posted yesterday a comment.
>
> If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer orphan
> since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)
>
> --
> Ionut
>

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:03:12 +0800
"arcpp.zju@gmail.com" <arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:

> I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait
> another week.
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> These PKGBUILDs are broken.
> >>
> >> I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to
> >> use cmake
> >> build system.
> >>
> >> I need to update the Dependencies and build script.
> >>
> >>
> > i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds
> > you only posted yesterday a comment.
> >
> > If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer
> > orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)
> >
> > --
> > Ionut
> >

Hello,

from what I understood, arcpp.zju is the developer of this software, not
(just) the creator of the PKGBUILD. If he can prove himself, he should
be made owner of the package ASAP... it doesn't matter if its
updated or not. If the developer wants to maintain his Arch package he
should be given priority, don't you agree?

Cheers

On 03/01/2010 04:14 PM, Hilton Medeiros wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:03:12 +0800
"arcpp.zju@gmail.com"<arcpp.zju@gmail.com> wrote:


I sent a mail to him two days ago. no response till now. Let's wait
another week.

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ionut Biru<biru.ionut@gmail.com>
wrote:


On 03/01/2010 12:43 PM, arcpp.zju@gmail.com wrote:


These PKGBUILDs are broken.

I abandon some utilities and use many new libraries, and start to
use cmake
build system.

I need to update the Dependencies and build script.



i suggest to way actually couples of days. of the released builds
you only posted yesterday a comment.

If you really want to maintainership let the current maintainer
orphan since is actually contributing(25 febr he updated -svn one)

--
Ionut



Hello,

from what I understood, arcpp.zju is the developer of this software, not
(just) the creator of the PKGBUILD. If he can prove himself, he should
be made owner of the package ASAP... it doesn't matter if its
updated or not. If the developer wants to maintain his Arch package he
should be given priority, don't you agree?

Cheers


sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't
be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about
giving it to him.


--
Ionut

On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
> sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't
> be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about
> giving it to him.

Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer
doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't
respond within a reasonable time.


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

I see. Sorry for previous messages.
I will wait.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if wouldn't
> > be right. that's why is better that he ask the current maintainer about
> > giving it to him.
>
> Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer
> doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't
> respond within a reasonable time.
>
>
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
>

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:08:45 +0800
Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/2010, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sure but if we stole the build from the current maintainer if
> > wouldn't be right. that's why is better that he ask the current
> > maintainer about giving it to him.
>
> Yeah, there's no reason to interfere unless (1) the current maintainer
> doesn't want to give up the package for some reason or (2) he doesn't
> respond within a reasonable time.
>
>
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD

I disagree. I believe the developer should have priority and be given
the ownership as soon as possible. You don't have to wait the
maintainer kiss good bye e hug the build. It is just a build script.

There is no copyright lines, so it is not stealing. The author has
copyrights over the software and the name of the software!

Put yourself at his position, he is obviously ashamed of the quality of
the build and is willing to fix it and maintain. My opinion is that
this is ridiculous.

My suggestion is to just disown it, and put a comment line saying
"Disowned per request of the software owner". I doubt the maintainer
will cry over this.