Package Details: notes-tree 1.0-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/notes-tree.git (read-only)
Package Base: notes-tree
Description: Note taking (knowledge base) app with tree like notes structure
Upstream URL: https://bitbucket.org/baltic/notestree/src
Licenses: zlib
Submitter: baltic
Maintainer: eschwartz
Last Packager: eschwartz
Votes: 2
Popularity: 0.000062
First Submitted: 2017-07-18 11:52
Last Updated: 2017-07-23 17:52

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

eschwartz commented on 2017-07-23 17:59

Okay, so I've pushed a commit that cleans up the problems I mentioned.

baltic commented on 2017-07-23 15:15

The conversation with you and your kind is over. I said it to you in various words already. Yet you are so hopelessly insane that keep crawling here to push your comments, which i frankly don't even bother to read anymore.
Find some more constructive things to do with the time.
P.S. And no, following other ppl like a maniac to push your views is not polite. Not a slightest.

eschwartz commented on 2017-07-23 15:08

I would not have been aware of this package at all, save that I saw your thread in the forums and *came to see what the fuss was about*, insults and all: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=228335

So I offered the review you had asked for in your previous thread, and then put Scimmia's accusation in context (that being that you respond aggressively towards anyone gullible enough to take you at your word when you ask for review).
I'm also pretty sure that I was almost entirely civil (despite having little hope for reciprocation).

...

You have yet to fix the build failures caused by not quoting "$pkgdir". You have yet to properly install the custom ZLIB license. You have yet to remove the empty validpgpkeys array that serves no purpose other than to be distracting. You may add the epoch variable to that list of "distracting, no-purpose content".
You have yet to say why you believe gtk-update-icon-cache and desktop-file-utils are necessary for your software, despite the fact that your source code doesn't use them (which would be weird) and you have no install script that uses them (which would be redundant because pacman 5 and alpm-hooks(5) and therefore invalid).

These are unambiguously valid critiques.

Incidentally regarding -j$(nproc), this is discussed here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Makepkg#MAKEFLAGS
Although in all fairness I cannot claim that that actually results in a built *.pkg.tar.xz with invalid content (unlike your syntax error with unquoted $pkgdir, and your inclusion of invalid dependency trees, and your legal failure to distribute the software license), no matter how bad a practice it is... so I suppose all I can really say there is that you exist in disagreement with nearly everyone... including the people in charge of devising makepkg/PKGBUILD standards and policy guidelines.

Also I am not sure if it escaped your notice, but kyrias and jelly are actually two of the people in charge of moderating the AUR, so it might be worth being polite to them (or humoring their definition of politeness, if you wish to see it that way). Though given that you have already carefully insulted the forum moderators in your posts to... the forum... I am once again unconvinced that you will do the reasonable thing.

> Want politeness? Learn to be polite yourself. Not just shut ppl up and than go pester them all over the internets.

So far you have only been shut up in the forums, when your thread was closed because you were doing nothing but insulting people, and here in the AUR, when a comment of yours was removed for being 100% offensive and not helpful to the discussion.

I really feel the Arch Linux community has been quite reasonable in this regard, but it is probably worth mentioning at this time that Arch Linux is not actually a democracy, we are a benevolent dictatorship run by the people in charge, for the sake of the people in charge, with the public allowed to share the fruits of those efforts in an entirely opt-in manner should they feel Arch Linux to be useful to them as well.
Unlike, say, Debian, users have no intrinsic right to be heard if the Arch Linux Staff collectively decide they don't like you. This is occasionally used as justification for shutting people up who are deemed to be toxic to the community, and the community does not regard this as a bad thing.

It would probably be better for everyone if you didn't escalate to that point.

baltic commented on 2017-07-23 14:05

"attack"? seriously? i don't follow anyone at aur or anywhere just to pester them to push my views.
Zealots had their chance to discuss it in a civil manner on the forum, but they have closed the tread under made up blames. Hence lost all credibility.
Want to be heard? Learn to hear.
Want politeness? Learn to be polite yourself. Not just shut ppl up and than go pester them all over the internets.

demize commented on 2017-07-23 13:53

Okay, so, speaking as a TU In A Very Official Manner™, you're way out of line here baltic. People were rightfully suggesting improvements to the PKGBUILD, and you start attacking them.

1) Overriding -j is wrong unless the build system is broken and you have to set it to -j1. This is clearly not the case here, and is thus objectively wrong for an AUR PKGBUILD. It would be fine if it was just your personal PKGBUILD, but this is the AUR.

2) In case the license thing wasn't clear enough already, since you don't seem to want to read the full paragraph, the paragraph you quoted continues with

> but technically each one is a custom license, because each one has its own copyright line. Any packages licensed under these four should have its own unique license stored in /usr/share/licenses/pkgname.

In other words, the wiki article explicitly tells you that the license file needs to be installed in the package.

If you're not up for the task of acting like a rational human being in the face of suggestions and criticism, please feel free to not maintain packages in the AUR instead, and keep the attacks out of the AUR.

jelly commented on 2017-07-23 13:52

baltic, I've removed your offensive comment, please keep it civil.

phillid commented on 2017-07-23 07:47

> So you and the other zealots, who try to push their personal preferences on others […]

You're pushing /your/ personal preference on others by overriding -j

eschwartz commented on 2017-07-23 07:27

> What i see there is:
> The BSD, MIT, zlib/png and Python licenses are special cases and could not be included in the licenses package

I'm not sure whether you have selective blindness or are just trying to be a jerk, but you must not have read the continuation of that paragraph.
I can assure you, I am one of the last people in Arch Linux to *not* know what that page says...

> About dependency on gtk-update-icon-cache and such you are also terribly wrong, according to the wiki.

I am not aware of anywhere in the Wiki that still says that, but if you tell me where you saw that, I can correct it. If you like, we can even discuss it on the talk page so you can witness the wiki admins agreeing with me.
But I believe you are simply lying.

Not that it really matters, because you don't include an install script to make use of gtk-update-icon-cache or desktop-file-utils anyway. But if you did, namcap would throw a warning at you, because again, hooks.

baltic commented on 2017-07-19 18:19

lol! Keep going!

Lone_Wolf commented on 2017-07-19 14:37

The wiki also says :
Any packages licensed under these four should have its own unique license stored in /usr/share/licenses/pkgname

The zlib license is one of those four, so you need to put the license file in the correct place.

- You do quote $srcdir correctly, but don't quote $pkgdir .

- about -j$(nproc) :
makepkg.conf does have a user-settable variable MAKEFLAGS which you are overriding .
Overriding makepkg.conf settings is not forbidden, but should only be done for good reasons like build failures.
For this package I am not aware of a good reason that justifies overriding MAKEFLAGS .