Project

General

Profile

Feature Request #3393

delete 'Packaging Rrequest' as valid redmine 'Issue Concern' (aka: Tracker)

wael - about 1 year ago - . Updated about 1 year ago.

Status:
in progress
Priority:
discussion
Assignee:
% Done:

0%


Description

I'm opening this issue here since the packaging request emails seem to have gone unanswered for a long while.
I'll list why I attempted to package each one along with the link to the list message:

All of the new packages, I am willing to take it upon myself to be the maintainer and make sure that the PKGBUILDs get updated on time and tested.


Related issues

Related to Packages - Bug #3426: Package updates on the mailing listnot-a-bug

Actions

History

#1

Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago

the dev list really is the best attended communication channel - most parabola devs do not watch the bug tracker, forum, IRC, or the pagure repo; but most active and inactive devs read the dev list

#2

Updated by wael about 1 year ago

I didn't get a comment on most of them or if they are even appropriate to package so I assumed they fell between the cracks, good to know though that the list is more relevant than here.

#3

Updated by wael about 1 year ago

About wlr-randr: it can be skipped, as I've managed to replicate the same behavior by using kanshi instead (which is already in the repos) - I will try to document it though in the wiki, as even the project's official docs are a bit lacking.

#4

Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago

packaging requests take so long because they are time consuming - some are dreaded, eg: yet another un-reproducible webby contraption or AUR-dep rabbit-hole - i just checked, of the 411 packaging requests on the bug tracker, 187 were completed or rejected - what parabola needs is a triage and/or licensing teams to process all the incoming packaging requests, patches, and freedom bugs, manage the blacklist, pagure pull-requests, etc

#5

Updated by wael about 1 year ago

bill-auger wrote:

packaging requests take so long because they are time consuming - some are dreaded, eg: yet another un-reproducible webby contraption or AUR-dep rabbit-hole - i just checked, of the 411 packaging requests on the bug tracker, 187 were completed or rejected - what parabola needs is a triage and/or licensing teams to process all the incoming packaging requests, patches, and freedom bugs, manage the blacklist, pagure pull-requests, etc

I do understand and greatly appreciate the effort that goes into maintaining Parabola overall!
In the case of gmid, I would like to point out that the attached PKGBUILD is a point update to an already existing package, that has been sitting for over a month - meanwhile unifont got updated much faster. This is what lead me to thinking some of these might've not been noticed.
As for the rest, this isn't merely a regular package request - in all of those I've attached PKGBUILDs that were vetted with libremakepkg and where I personally went ahead and checked the licenses (for the sake of accuracy, naemon is the only one I didn't properly vet - and I should've pointed that out).
As for the software itself, almost all of these are written in C and are generally small programs with minimal dependencies (all the dependencies are already in Parabola's repos).
But again, as I said earlier, the only one that really surprised me was gmid - since it is a minor update and not a wholly new package.

#6

Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago

  • Related to Bug #3426: Package updates on the mailing list added
#7

Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from Packaging requests on the mailing list to delete 'Packaging Rrequest' as valid redmine 'Issue Concern' (aka: Tracker)
  • Project changed from Packages to Servers
  • Tracker changed from Bug to Feature Request

In the case of gmid, that has been sitting for over a month - meanwhile unifont got updated much faster.

no reason - i just chose one of the ~20 or so since january - IIRC gnutoo chose another

#8

Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from wael to bill-auger

Also available in: Atom PDF