Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information. (Read 902 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Ahoj,

I just wanted to contact the maintainer of world/minicom directly. To do so I looked at the Maintainer:-line in it's PKGBUILD.

There I find:
Code: [Select]
# Maintainer: Morten Linderud <foxboron(at)archlinux.org>
. I emailed this person, but the reply was just
Quote from: foxboron(at)archlinux.org
I don't work on Artix Linux.

So, Artix' PKGBUILD misses the correct maintainer of the Artix package.

Can you please correct that, so that people do not errorneously write the Arch Linux people?

Regards!

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #1 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
Can you please correct that, so that people do not errorneously write the Arch Linux people?
There's a fairly large clue
Quote
foxboron(at)archlinux.org
Another clue gitea, commits.

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #2 –
We don't overwrite the maintainer line when importing stuff from arch.

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Dudemanguy – on
We don't overwrite the maintainer line when importing stuff from arch.
And how does someone who grabs the PKGBUILD (e.g. by manual download or using something similar to Arch Build System) knows who is the maintainer of the Artix package? 
I thought until today that "Maintainer" should be correct.

Actually, there is an issue with the minicom in Artix, as it conflicts with openrc.

Quote from: gripped – on
Quote from: dreieck – on
people do not errorneously write the Arch Linux people?
There's a fairly large clue
Quote
foxboron(at)archlinux.org
if you mean "@archlinux.org" as a clue: People can work for both, Arch and Artix. For an outsider this is not clear.

Regards!

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #4 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
if you mean "@archlinux.org" as a clue: People can work for both, Arch and Artix. For an outsider this is not clear.
I suppose they could but as far as I know they don't. So you shouldn't be emailing anyone @archlinux.org about Artix package problems unless you know different in a specific case. You are just wasting your time and theirs.

In theory every Artix package has it's build files on gitea. eg minicom
https://gitea.artixlinux.org/packages/minicom
If you look at who is doing the commits you should be able to work out the maintainer(s)

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #5 –
Also check the repo's topics for a maintainer. minicom doesn't have its topic set, but look at Firefox for example. It uses the format "maintainer-*"

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #6 –
Quote from: gripped – on
In theory every Artix package has it's build files on gitea. eg minicom
https://gitea.artixlinux.org/packages/minicom
If you look at who is doing the commits you should be able to work out the maintainer(s)
Quote from: corysanin – on
Also check the repo's topics for a maintainer. minicom doesn't have its topic set, but look at Firefox for example. It uses the format "maintainer-*"
OK, thanks. 
That's making it needlessly confusing in my eyes. 
But OK tht helps for now, now that I know this specific information.

Then I suggest that all Maintainer: lines of Artix packages get removed/ replaced by Contributor: lines. 
Because that is factual documentation which is there, currently it is false documentation.

Regards!

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #7 –
Why? The typical channel for discussing package issues is currently the forum. So why do you even need to know the maintainer, let alone email them directly? A lot of packages don't have a maintainer right now, so even if the PKGBUILD followed your suggestion, you'd be emailing the wrong person. Contrast that with posting here on the forum, where someone who could do something about it can actually see it.

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #8 –
Quote from: corysanin – on
Why? The typical channel for discussing package issues is currently the forum. So why do you even need to know the maintainer, let alone email them directly? A lot of packages don't have a maintainer right now, so even if the PKGBUILD followed your suggestion, you'd be emailing the wrong person. Contrast that with posting here on the forum, where someone who could do something about it can actually see it.
Because an issue that stops upgrading (conflict between two packages introduced with update of a package in Artix) is not acted upon since now 20 days since reporting, so I suspect the maintainer of this package is not reading here and want to inform them directly via email that there is some issue.

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #9 –
I suspect you know how to fix this issue for yourself ? A fix has been detailed in at least one of the threads about the issue.

Maybe it's just a priorities thing as to why your bug report on the forum has not been acted upon ?
Nether you nor I know exactly what is going on behind the scenes but what I do know is that recently Arch started suffixing KDE packages with '5'. Therefore a lot of work may have been involved to follow that change. without causing KDE to break for Artix users. Of which I'm fairly sure there are more of than the number of users using minicom in combination with openrc?
I'm guessing though.
 

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #10 –
minicom is one of many packages without a maintainer right now, so there'd be nobody to contact directly anyways. We're in the process of onboarding more maintainers, at least.

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #11 –
Quote from: gripped – on
I suspect you know how to fix this issue for yourself ?
Yes, I have now also posted a PKGBUILD patch into the thread. 
But manual fix is a one-time fix -- when the issue is not resolved on the Artix side, the next update will probably introduce the problem again.

Quote from: corysanin – on
minicom is one of many packages without a maintainer right now
And thanks for that explanation -- orphaned package right now.

Thats explains it enough for me, 
regards!

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #12 –
Quote from: dreieck – on
But manual fix is a one-time fix -- when the issue is not resolved on the Artix side, the next update will probably introduce the problem again.
An Artix dev fix to minicom could well also be a one time fix as it was fixed once before. And then when the next version of minicom came out (three versions of minicom in the last 6 years) it regressed as the new Arch PKGBUILD was probably used (I'm guessing ) and Arch minicom does not have a file conflict with the openrc runscript file as Arch does not not use openrc.

I can't be bothered to find the thread but there were links to Gentoo openrc bug reports about the 'runscript' collision. And how openrc runscript is deprecated. I think Gentoo got rid of the openrc runscript but could be wrong?
IMHO it's the openrc package which needs fixing not the minicom package. Assuming there are no Artix openrc service packages which still call runscript?

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #13 –
Ahoj,

I am a bit confused:

Here is a repeated strong statement that Artix does not support to install packages from Arch Linux, and the tenor for me reads like that Artix is not Arch and Artix should not be affiliated with Arch.

Then I am confused about

Quote from: gripped – on
Nether you nor I know exactly what is going on behind the scenes but what I do know is that recently Arch started suffixing KDE packages with '5'. Therefore a lot of work may have been involved to follow that change.
and
Quote from: gripped – on
An Artix dev fix to minicom could well also be a one time fix as it was fixed once before. And then when the next version of minicom came out (three versions of minicom in the last 6 years) it regressed as the new Arch PKGBUILD was probably used
:

Why should Artix then bother to follow Arch repos compatibility, and why does Artix draw from Arch, when it reads like it is not wanting to stay Arch-compatible?

Quote from: corysanin – on
We're in the process of onboarding more maintainers

What is needed to become a maintainer of some packages, what are the requirements? (I maintain some AUR packages right now.) 
(If regularly actively seeing the forum for issues is needed to stay informed about problems then this is a no-go criterium for me; I need to get targeted notifications if something relates to stuff I maintain, e.g. via distinctive emails from an issue tracker. If this is possible, I can think of volunteering to help Artix staff shortage :-))

Regards!

Re: minicom: PKGBUILD has wrong maintainer information.

Reply #14 –
Artix is derived from Arch. Most non init related PKGBUILDs are derived from their Arch equivalents.
Changes are made to SOME packages to remove systemd and systemd dependencies. Also some changes for branding and build issues.
Artix packages sometimes trail in version numbers from their Arch equivalents which can cause breakage at times if installing Arch packages on a Artix installation. So it is unsupported. You can do it though . I and many others do but when it breaks it's on you to solve it.

Drawing from Arch is not the same concept as being fully compatible with Arch !
Ubuntu draws from Debian but does not have full compatibility.  Likewise many other 'derived' distros.

You are indeed confused.