On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, 甘露(Gan Lu) <rhythm.gan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I know I'm crossposting this, but this rather belongs to arch-general >>> than to aur-general. >>> >>> Am Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:40 -0500 >>> schrieb Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>>> I think it's kind of hard for me to see why I should maintain a >>>> package that's already been discarded by its developer. In my opinion >>>> such packages should be moved to [unsupported] where the one more two >>>> people who might want to use them can simply build them themselves. >>> >>> Why should those packages be removed from the repos as long as they are >>> running? That doesn't make sense. And such packages doesn't make any >>> work for the developers. They can just be staying in the repos without >>> doing any harm like e.g. eboard. >> You got my point. >>> >>> Regarding ding as an example doesn't make much work for the devs >>> because it's updated by upstream every two years. And this package is >>> really popular at least in Germany, because it's an English-German >>> dictionary. And this tool is really old - but not outdated and >>> unmainted. It's one of the first Linux applications and available in >>> every repo of every distro. >>> >>> And the question is not cleaning up the repos in principle. The >>> question is this mass cleanup and the removal of several popular and >>> important packages even if they are orphaned. >>> >>> If there's an orphan quite popular then an unorphaned packages which is >>> not popular or important could be moved to AUR and the orphaned and >>> more popular package could be adopted by this dev. Just an example. >>> >>> squashfs-tools are necessary for building LiveCDs incl. the Arch Linux >>> installation CD as far as I know. So I'm not sure if this package >>> actually wouldn't belong to [core]. >>> >>> btrfs-progs also doesn't belong to AUR. This package belongs into >>> [core] and should be supported by AIF. Even if it's still marked as >>> experimental, many people in the web report that it's pretty stable and >>> that it's only missing an fsck. And many people report that it's >>> usable on systems which don't need to be absolutely reliable. >>> >>> Btw., instead of the stable package btrfs-progs there's a package >>> btrfs-progs-unstable in [extra] which really makes sense as the repos >>> are meant to be stable repos. >>> >>> eboard, a still working and good chess GUI, was moved from [extra] to >>> AUR. It's not maintained by upstream anymore but it's still working, >>> it's quite popular and doesn't make any work for the devs. Having this >>> in [extra] means there's a compiled and working package which doesn't >>> need to be maintained. Having this package in AUR means that every user >>> who wants to install this package must compile this package by himself. >>> So what sense does this cleanup make? It makes completely no sense! >>> >>> epdfviewer is a very popular because lightweight PDF viewer for GTK. >>> Galculator is the best calculator for GTK I know and also quite >>> popular, at lest recommended quite often e.g. in the Xfce wiki. What's >>> such a package doing in AUR? >>> >>> And, please, don't tell me anything about missing interest of the devs. >>> As if every dev is using every package which he maintains himself or >>> every dev only maintains only packages he is using himself. >>> >>> This is what I name and shame. >>> >>> This mass cleanup was just done inconsiderately. >>> >>> I really respect the voluntary work of the devs and TUs. And I really >>> honor their work in their spare time. And I don't expect too much. But >>> if a repo shall be cleaned up this must be done a lot more considered. >> We are practical people, aren't we? Please reconsider this cleanup, >> thanks. I don't mean it's bad, but please reconsider some. > > Five step plan to success: > 1) Actually contribute instead of whining on a mailing list Yes, I see your point and I support it. The following statement makes me think that do you judge contribution by only if I or other are a TU or dev? How do you know we are not contributing because I or others are not a TU/dev. Anyone has his/her expertise. > 2) Get your name known in the TU/dev circles > 3) Apply for a position where you can contribute more > 4) Have your opinion actually count because we know you do work > instead of act as a roadblock > 5) Become jaded like the rest of us, realizing that users always think > the world is ending, and when they say "this is shame", "I'm leaving", > "you suck", "developers are selfish", none of the developers have ever > really cared and would rather poisonous people leave anyway. If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think you are? > > Because I enjoy getting things done, I'm now done with arch-general, > and I know several other devs have unsubscribed as of late because of > the useless traffic and emails like this one. Add me to that list. > > -Dan >