Arch Linux User Repository

Hey @skrewball, if you like to work on weekends you're free to do that. I like to not work on weekends.

Anyway, I have already created the update, I just wanted to ship it with pgp signature verification, and noticed in the process that the signature they provide is not supported by makepkg - so I created a bug report for that:

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/issues/7707

<strike>So this is holding back this update right now.</strike> Edit: Released it without it. Will push a null release as soon as the signature is available.

I also reported that the way the lbry pgp key gets shared is suboptimal and the download link for the signature itself is broken:

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry.com/issues/1503

And fixed that:

https://github.com/lbryio/lbry.com/pull/1504

PS: The circumstances were explained by me above and calling this forcefully is a misrepresentation of what happened.

Have a nice day :)

At least @TomZander was timely and prompt with the updates before this package was forcefully taken from them.

You seem to be unaware, but it is not possible to import the old commits.

If you ever need this again, I'll explain. Its not very hard as AUR is based on git. Keeping history and changing HEAD is not hard. All it takes is one new commit on that old history.

Either way, you have been shown the damage you have caused, that you chose to debate the points while the outcome is based on facts is showing again the problem here.

Hey Tom,

You seem aware only of the front-end and not of the rest, which is where the problems start.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion 🤔

To your point 1)

There's no other way to rename a project. You seem to be unaware, but it is not possible to import the old commits. The server will just reject them due to mismatching pkgname variables.

To your point 2)

You noticed that the old git is not gone, but still thinks I have "deleted valuable data"? That doesn't make much sense. The old package is kept on the server, so everyone interested in the history can just fetch it.

To your point 3)

I did nothing like that. The response on the mailing list regarding my question of renaming it was denied, as a new package need to be created as target. That's what I did.

As you contacted me with foam at the mouth, I responded with that maintaining the package was never my intention, but to orphan it. There was never a response to that, but instead you resorted to insults, like in your last message.

I'm sorry, that you seem to missunderstand my intentions, to just change the name or doesn't seem to understand the process necessary for thag, but I don't want to follow this uncivilised discussion any longer.

Don't expect any further responses to messages to me.

Have a nice day.

Hello, @RubenKelevra

from your message I understand you don't seem to understand what damage you did. You just wanted to fix the name. If that had no side-effects, you are right, it would be nice. But it has a lot of side-effects you seem to not be aware off.

First, how AUR works is important here. AUR is basically a git hosting service with a thin little front-end on it. You seem aware only of the front-end and not of the rest, which is where the problems start.

1. you created a new git repo, with a separate history. You started a new project but you didn't fork the original project. In other words, all history of all changes is gone from view. You did a destructive action which wiped out a huge amount of valuable history which can no longer be found.

2. The 'removal' of the old package doesn't actually remove it. The git clone keeps on working. More important, all the people that had the 'app' AUR on their computers will not magically move to the new 'desktop' one. They will keep looking at the 'app' one. That package had 60 votes, we can assume that at least 10x more people actually had it installed. You just made manual intervention needed for all those people.

3. AURs are maintained by volunteers, typically people more closely tied to the software they are packaging then they are tied to Arch. They are doing this as a gift to the Arch community. What you did by going over the heads of the maintainers you and some other VIPs basically said you don't give a **** about the people that actually give value to Arch: Upstream.

You don't understand why you got accused of "stealing" this package? Please try to understand the reasons from this post and how they are seriously hurting Arch users.

The only solution is to merge back into the 'app' package, because of how AUR works. That is a reality we can't escape. Its never been deleted. You can still git-pull from it and many people will continue to do exactly that.

Hey @TomZander,

sorry for the late reply, I've been taken ill and had trouble keeping up with my mails.

So my original intention was just to fix the name - to have the package following the name of the git repository and then disown it - which is what I communicated to the maintainer(s) of the lbry-app-bin package. I never received a response to this, but instead got insulted that I want to steal their package.

Having lbry-desktop following the name of the project on Github makes the most sense as it follows the principle of least astonishment best.

I haven't yet read a single argument why the binary package needs a different name than the regular and the git package and its git repository - is there one? If so all three packages should be renamed, not just one.

It is to note that there are two other GUI applications for lbry: lbry-viewer and lbry-gtk. Having a lbry-app-bin package next to lbry-desktop makes it less clear if they are related to those or not.

Now again for the sake of peace: I like to offer again that I disown this package that the maintainer of lbry-app-bin can pick it up. Let me know if you guys are interested in this.

If you find an agreement without useless rants please file a clear and definitive request. One-way requests about these packages won't be approved (at least by me).

You know, that sounds like we got unlucky with the earlier arch VP, as this sounds like how it SHOULD be.

When this started I was expecting it to be that way in Arch. (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2022-June/073558.html) but the package merge happened without much civility or cooperation.

As @RubenKelevra states he is tired of this, maybe he can agree that we simply correct the social problem first. Which means a merge of this package into lbry-app-bin. Maybe not the ideal name, but one that 100s of people have in their AUR checkout right now and while maybe the 'desktop' name would be better if we start fresh, we have a community to support which makes the rename destructive.

What say you, Ruben?

As stated before, a merge request after being accepted cannot be reverted.

If both maintainers would agree or would collaborate to the same package we could have agreed to rename this package in lbry-app-bin

Unfortunately as you don't find an agreement I cannot force a package rename.

As a third party observer, the lbry desktop app uses both names in many places but I think lbry-desktop is a better and more suited name for this software. If I'd package this I'd use the name lbry-desktop instead of lbry-app. (personal opinion only)

Please try to collaborate, packages are not meant to be property of the maintainers but build instructions for the users and maintainers offer their work for users.

If you find an agreement without useless rants please file a clear and definitive request. One-way requests about these packages won't be approved (at least by me).

Hey @muflone (and others related to the lbry-app-bin package) I'm sorry, but this whole situation is really, REALLY tiring. I don't see a point continuing this discussion further here. I'll just sum my view up here again:

• I started maintaining lbry-desktop-git / lbry-desktop and I saw a lbry-app-bin package in the list of packages which didn't make much sense, as I wasn't aware of any additional software for lbry.
• Turned out that's just badly named, but the same software.
• I filed a deletion request [PRQ#35598].
• This request was accepted, but under the terms that I should create a new package with the right name and file a merge request.
• I did.
• I fixed multiple packaging issues along the way.
• Then all hell broke loose, I received multiple personal mails, mails on the mailing list comments on the new/old package etc.
• I tried to reason with the multiple people that I just want to rename this package, and I'm happy to disown it after the rename, but never got a response to that. Instead, I got insulted that I want to steal something from them. 🤷

Now, I'm out of this discussion, as I don't think it's healthy to continue it.

I'll just keep maintaining lbry-desktop-bin in the same way as I maintain lbry-desktop-git and lbry-desktop - as long there's not an administrative decision by an administrator.

@RubenKelevra my question was addressed also to you

if you prefer to continue by email I'll send a separated message but we don't need two packages in the AUR for the same software