package was removed by another in an afternoon.

replabrobin · 2018-08-14 21:51:15

My package packer-combined was turned into a co-maintained package in an afternoon. Someone called shibumi is now the maintainer of packer-aur-combined. I was given less than a few hours to respond to a message from shibumi and then my package was deleted. How is this possible?

schard · 2018-08-14 21:56:48

I think, that this is the reason, which is also stated on the AUR page of (formerly) your packet
I suspect TU @shubumi took it over in order to rename it.
And I am also sure that, if you ask him nicely, he'll give it back to you.

eschwartz · 2018-08-14 21:58:24

Because the person who uploaded it is automatically the maintainer, and there's no way for us to add a maintainer directly. Only the comaintainer list is editable at all.

tl;dr this was not a hostile takeover, just an administrative namespace move of packer which resulted in a bad UI.

Last edited by eschwartz (2018-08-14 22:00:42)

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 05:55:45

I'm still a bit amazed that 1) packer-combined is apparently considered harmful to packer-aur or the Hashicorp packer and 2) that a non-maintainer of packer-combined can apparently delete / rename it.

Can I rename others' packages? Presumably shibumi can do this because he has extra rights.

Many other packages have names which are similar to those in the official packages. Should all AUR packages have -aur in their names?

This was not handled correctly or politely, but that's fairly typical of the Arch way.

eschwartz · 2018-08-15 06:09:30

replabrobin wrote:

I'm still a bit amazed that 1) packer-combined is apparently considered harmful to packer-aur or the Hashicorp packer

I imagine it was because thematically, packer-combined as a "combined" derivative of packer-aur doesn't make 100% sense.

and 2) that a non-maintainer of packer-combined can apparently delete / rename it.
Can I rename others' packages? Presumably shibumi can do this because he has extra rights.

You're amazed that a Trusted User is permitted to perform administrative actions like deleting or merging packages? How do you suppose we respond to deletion or merge requests submitted by other users, then? Do you think this is some sort of immutable blockchain? Or do you just think we bother Aaron Griffin (the current owner of the Arch Linux trademark and official leader of Arch Linux) every time?

Many other packages have names which are similar to those in the official packages. Should all AUR packages have -aur in their names?

packer was not just similar, it was 100% identical. Shibumi only renamed your package because it's a direct variant of the other package which he renamed.

This was not handled correctly or politely, but that's fairly typical of the Arch way.

If you would like to resubmit it with a new name, you are welcome to do so and submit a merge request. Although I'd sort of figure it would make sense to rename entirely when you forked it. TBH I'm not really sure what this is supposed to do that packer does not...

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 09:08:22

Sorry, but I find your arguments less than convincing.

Firstly hashicorp packer is later than the pacman related packer; I will agree that hashicorp packer is likely to be of more interest to cloud people than old hackers like me.

Secondly the acronym TU means nothing to me other than "Technische Universität". Searching the AUR for packer reveals that TU Shibumi did this to other packages with packer in their name; packer-aur, packer-aur-git are the results etc etc. Surely 'Trusted Users' could apply some opensource consideration to those who contribute and give them more than half a day to agree to a rather terse notification.

packer-combined was an attempt to combine some features of the other packer variants. It would have been better to cooperate, but the other packages were/are somewhat inactive.

Last edited by replabrobin (2018-08-15 09:09:13)

Shibumi · 2018-08-15 09:21:31

Hello Replabrobin,
First of all a big sorry for that move. I should have announced or communicated that earlier. I have just informed the original packer developer and missed that we have certain forks as well in our repositories.
Of course you will get your package back. The move was not intended as hostile takeover, it was more a friendly service. Because without the new name there was a high possibility that the package would have been deleted or would break different setups for the users.

About the new name itself: Hashicorp packer is more known, active maintained and developed and has a bigger audience than our AUR helper. The release date doesn't matter here.

Please get in contact with me either via mail or via IRC (shibumi in irc.freenode.org) to get full maintainership of your package back.

loqs · 2018-08-15 11:06:11

@replabrobin are you aware of https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a … 26039.html ?

Trilby · 2018-08-15 13:00:26

replabrobin wrote:

This was not handled correctly or politely...

This sounds like it could be a justified critique. It seems shibumi may even agree as he has apologized just above for potentially inadequate communication.

replabrobin wrote:

Secondly the acronym TU means nothing to me...

That, however, is entirely your failing, and if it is true, you have no business maintaining any AUR package in the first place.

replabrobin wrote:

... but that's fairly typical of the Arch way.

If you feel this way, why are you here? Again, I actually agree that there may have been a failure in communication here - and I think you may be entitled to a sincere apology (which has been provided above) - but if you think this community needs to bend over backwards to convince you to stick around, you're in for a rude awakening.

ewaller · 2018-08-15 14:08:33

replabrobin, I am glad this seems to be on the path to being worked out. Not intending to open a large can of worms, I notice that there is a moderator comment that indicates you are, or have been an Archbang user. That is fine, and I don't care; but I am curious -- did this name change become such an issue because it may have broken installers for an Arch Linux fork? Also, I am curious as to whether this is somehow related to your indicated less than positive depiction of this community.

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 20:36:15

Shibumi wrote:

Hello Replabrobin,
First of all a big sorry for that move. I should have announced or communicated that earlier. I have just informed the original packer developer and missed that we have certain forks as well in our repositories.
Of course you will get your package back. The move was not intended as hostile takeover, it was more a friendly service. Because without the new name there was a high possibility that the package would have been deleted or would break different setups for the users.
About the new name itself: Hashicorp packer is more known, active maintained and developed and has a bigger audience than our AUR helper. The release date doesn't matter here.
Please get in contact with me either via mail or via IRC (shibumi in irc.freenode.org) to get full maintainership of your package back.

Shibumi apology is accepted. Please don't stress too much. I am perfectly able to accept the name change in the package. As I see it the main problem is to decide what the package should 'provide'. If the name "packer" now belongs to hashicorp then the provided executable script probably needs to change. If that is required I shall just maintain the script locally. I've been typing "packer" too long and certainly won't be using hashicorp tools.

However, I think there needs to be some thought put into how these name clashes should be resolved in future.

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 20:45:50

ewaller wrote:

replabrobin, I am glad this seems to be on the path to being worked out. Not intending to open a large can of worms, I notice that there is a moderator comment that indicates you are, or have been an Archbang user. That is fine, and I don't care; but I am curious -- did this name change become such an issue because it may have broken installers for an Arch Linux fork? Also, I am curious as to whether this is somehow related to your indicated less than positive depiction of this community.

I run nothing, but standard Arch on x86/amd64. I use alarm on rpis. I used archbang as an installer a few times. I am not a fan of the Arch way as it seems extraordinarily wary of alternate viewpoints. I use Arch Linux, but I am not a fanatic and believe acronyms and jargon should be avoided at all costs. In my open source work it is often hard to be polite, but I think it is essential.

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 20:51:34

replabrobin wrote:
... but that's fairly typical of the Arch way.
If you feel this way, why are you here? Again, I actually agree that there may have been a failure in communication here - and I think you may be entitled to a sincere apology (which has been provided above) - but if you think this community needs to bend over backwards to convince you to stick around, you're in for a rude awakening.

I think you explain exactly why I think the Arch way might be a bit off putting. I haven't actually required anyone to bend over backwards and I stick around because I generally don't need to ask questions here. Defense of Arch is not required here as no-one is actually attacking it.

replabrobin · 2018-08-15 20:55:31

loqs wrote:

@replabrobin are you aware of https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a … 26039.html ?

I was aware of this, but it was in the middle of a work day and I had no time to respond or do anything until it was a fait accompli.

loqs · 2018-08-15 20:58:40

replabrobin wrote:

loqs wrote:
@replabrobin are you aware of https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a … 26039.html ?
I was aware of this, but it was in the middle of a work day and I had no time to respond or do anything until it was a fait accompli.

The package has not be removed from the AUR yet, the request has yet to be decided. Shibumi has disowned the package so you could take ownership of the package and respond to the removal request.
Anyone else could also not take ownership I believe as it has been orphaned.
Edit:
grammar incomplete sentence missing "the package"

Last edited by loqs (2018-08-15 21:00:42)

cowlick · 2018-08-18 13:10:55

Sorry to be latching on to this post but it seems to be referring to the aur package "packer" which I have used for a few years and like very much. After all the above back and forth can some one advise as to where the replacement packer can be found? Is "packer-aur" considered the recommended replacement?

Alad · 2018-08-18 15:58:41

Is "packer-aur" considered the recommended replacement?

It's exactly the same, apart from superficial changes in the PKGBUILD to accomodate for the new name.

Morganamilo · 2018-08-18 17:29:26

Although you might want to consider moving to 'packer-aur-git' as 'packer-aur' may be merged into it.

Last edited by Morganamilo (2018-08-18 17:44:45)

cowlick · 2018-08-21 00:17:44

My thanks to Alad and Morganomilo.

Arch Linux

#1 2018-08-14 21:51:15

package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#2 2018-08-14 21:56:48

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#3 2018-08-14 21:58:24

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#4 2018-08-15 05:55:45

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#5 2018-08-15 06:09:30

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#6 2018-08-15 09:08:22

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#7 2018-08-15 09:21:31

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#8 2018-08-15 11:06:11

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#9 2018-08-15 13:00:26

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#10 2018-08-15 14:08:33

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#11 2018-08-15 20:36:15

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#12 2018-08-15 20:45:50

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#13 2018-08-15 20:51:34

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#14 2018-08-15 20:55:31

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#15 2018-08-15 20:58:40

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#16 2018-08-18 13:10:55

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#17 2018-08-18 15:58:41

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#18 2018-08-18 17:29:26

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

#19 2018-08-21 00:17:44

Re: package was removed by another in an afternoon.

Board footer