El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 13:57 -0300, Giancarlo Razzolini escribió:
> If individual attribution is needed, it can be obtained using version
> control history.
Yes, but this does not happen when moving a package from AUR to the
official repositories. For example in the case of the package we are
ta
Hi,
On 10/19/24 3:19 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
Hello foks,
I tell you, about 8 hours ago a package that Radu C. Martin and I were
maintaining (textpieces) was moved from the AUR to extra. In this
movement (which seems perfect to us, every package officially
maintained is welcome and better t
Hi L.Y,
> 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.
> In any case, this is not the most important thing. IMHO, it's just that
> I think there should be some kind of policy about this so that the work
> done by someone else before you is credited.
The most important thing is exactly what you said. But the reason why I sent
that email is that I thin
I think that at minimum even an automated email with
"Hey the package you maintained on AUR is now in extra/blah, your
repository or parts of it may or may not have been used, thank you for
your contributions!"
sent to the Maintainer and Co-Maintainers of the package at the time
would go a long way
El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 18:30 +0800, crupest escribió:
> Hello Amor, would you mind confirming whether you made this AUR
> package
> before offical repository adotped it.
Yes, as I commented at the beginning of the thread, Radu C. Martin and
I maintained the textpieces package.
In any case, this
Hello Amor, would you mind confirming whether you made this AUR package
before offical repository adotped it.
If not, just ignore the following things.
> The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications **already** in any of
> the official binary repositories under any circumstances.
This is
On October 22, 2024 10:34:58 AM GMT+02:00, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
>> 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 h
El mar, 22-10-2024 a las 10:56 +0200, Jelle van der Waa escribió:
> And I agree that Arch packagers should do this, we want to get more
> people to become a package maintainer and the AUR is good starting
> ground to get recognized for your work.
Completely agree.
> I hope you didn't mean it as
Hi everyone,
22 Oct 2024 11:57:13 Jelle van der Waa :
Hi,
On 21/10/2024 17:09, Óscar García Amor wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +, 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 thum
Hi,
On 21/10/2024 17:09, Óscar García Amor wrote:
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +, 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 PKG
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 09:35, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> far too much importance is attached to this point. For example, take a
> look at an important official package. Although the names of the
> contributors and maintainers should be familiar to anyone who has been
> using Arch Linux for a long ti
On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:02 +0800, Ling Yang(杨令) wrote:
> 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.
Hi,
far too much importance is attached to this poi
El lun, 21-10-2024 a las 19:07 +0200, Martin Rys escribió:
> 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 o
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://ih
> 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 enthus
> 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 th
El sáb, 19-10-2024 a las 12:15 +, 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 maintainer
> but it doesn't seem fair to me that the person (or persons) who kept
> the package for a while until it became official is not credited.
It doesn't look like they used your PKGBUILD at all, there's nothing there for
you to be credited for.
Hello foks,
I tell you, about 8 hours ago a package that Radu C. Martin and I were
maintaining (textpieces) was moved from the AUR to extra. In this
movement (which seems perfect to us, every package officially
maintained is welcome and better than this in the AUR) our names have
disappeared[1].
20 matches
Mail list logo
