I agree with Ling Yang.Some of us pour our hearts out into maintaining packages on the AUR, and it is really unfair to dismiss our invested time and effort just because our PKGBUILDs weren't used as a base when adopting the package.
A little appreciation goes a LONG way! -- txtsd https://ihavea.quest On 10/22/24 9:32 AM, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
> Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so. > > They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote > a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when > software already exists in official repos. Let's consider this scenario: 1. An enthusiastic and dedicated AUR package maintainer has been diligently maintaining a package. 2. One day, he wakes up to find that the package he maintains has been incorporated into the official repository, while the AUR repository he maintained has been disabled. 3. Since his PKGBUILD was not reused, his name does not appear in the maintainer list (which is understandable). 4. However, with his AUR repository being disabled, there is no way for people to learn about his work, and it seems as though his contributions to the Arch community have never existed. If the process described above is how AUR packages are transitioned into the official repository, I find it to be unfair. Whether the contributions of a contributor are recorded should not depend on whether the official team has reused their work. I believe the community should encourage members to contribute and express gratitude to those contributors, while also recording their contributions in some way. It's like this: "Hey Maintainer X, we really appreciate your hard work on Package Y. Now, it's time for Y to make the move to the official repository. Even though we're not adopting your work directly, we want to make sure your efforts are recognized. Here's a shout-out to your dedication: [some link|some wiki page|a special mention in PKGBUILD|...] Thank you for your contribution." regards, -- L.Y On 2024/10/22 01:07, Martin Rys wrote: >> conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? >> "If you are assuming the role of maintainer for an existing PKGBUILD" > > Based on what has been said in this thread, I don't think so. > > They did not take maintainership over an existing PKGBUILD, they wrote > a new one from scratch, and disabled the AUR repo, as is custom when > software already exists in official repos. > > Martin >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 5:10 PM Óscar García Amor <ogarcia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> >> El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +0000, Doug Newgard escribió: >>> It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing >>> there for you to be credited for. >> >> By the same rule of thumb if you adopt a package in the AUR and rewrite >> the PKGBUILD you should not credit the previous maintainers. This >> conflicts with what the guide says[1], doesn't it? >> >> I personally have adopted packages, completely rewritten PKGBUILD and >> kept the names before me out of respect for their work. >> >> I guess in the end it depends on the individual and the kind of person >> you are. >> >> Greetings. >> >> [1]:>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/ AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submission>> >> -- >> Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x97C8848C2E4063CB.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
