Package Details: onedrive 1.1.3-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/onedrive.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: onedrive
Description: Free OneDrive client written in D
Upstream URL: https://github.com/skilion/onedrive
Licenses: GPL3
Submitter: Scimmia
Maintainer: Scimmia
Last Packager: Scimmia
Votes: 13
Popularity: 0.025922
First Submitted: 2018-02-20 15:50
Last Updated: 2018-10-03 05:23

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

badlydrawnface commented on 2020-05-26 16:22

I personally find this package easier to use than onedrive-abraunegg. On this version, all you have to do to authenticate and sync is to just type onedrive. while on onedrive-abraunegg, you have to type in onedrive --synchronize after authenticating.

abraunegg commented on 2020-05-08 07:58

@ogarcia 100% agree with you re fixing this package .. but some folk are rather steadfast on this for absolutely zero logical reason .. it is what it is - I am sorry for your inconvenience (and to all other Arch AUR users who fall into the same trap) of installing a buggy, unsupported, unmaintained package.

@eschwartz Your email comment to @ogarcia really shows just how out-of-touch with reality you are.

ogarcia commented on 2020-05-08 07:37

Hello, a few days ago I started to use OneDrive for work reasons and after see that this package source is abandoned, I realized that the work continues live in a fork by abraunegg. As I can see more distributions like Debian or Slackware adopt this fork as onedrive package. At this moment I do a request for rename or merge this package with onedrive-abraunegg: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2020-April/039852.html

A few days later I receive this response, a simply "not how forks work": https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2020-May/040109.html

I try to contact with Eli and Doug to obtain more detailed explanation about why of this reply, but no response.

I don't know if there is personal quarrels or something else, I only look for the best to users and Arch community. I simply think that maintain an outdated package having better options is a mistake.

Varakh commented on 2019-04-06 13:20

I requested a merge but unfortunately it got rejected. I think that the decision is discussable but still, I don't have the final word here and I don't have energy left to dig deeper into this one.

Also, it seems to be "completely normal". :-)

See mail history here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2019-April/030735.html

abraunegg commented on 2019-04-03 18:50

@Varakh, @Pete Debian, Ubuntu & Fedora are all using my fork / packaging v2.3.2 as well - so there really is no logical reason not to repoint it and the updated branch as the 'onedrive' package.

The last 'skilion' release was on 10 Sep 2018, prior was on 21 Jan 2018. The last time 'skilion' actually responded to an issue was 10 Sep 2018 by closing off some open issue tickets which was fixed by the v1.1.3 release.

There has hardly ever been any interaction with anyone over issues raised nor discussion around PR's that have been submitted.

@blue995 Your 100% CPU issue is resolved - refer to https://github.com/abraunegg/onedrive/releases for details or more specifically https://github.com/abraunegg/onedrive/pull/419

@Scimmia Last time this was raised you basically have said 'things don't work that way' - I think you have enough evidence from the wider community that the 'skilion' branch is dead (and has been despite the very minor releases in 2018) for close to 2 years now given I have been patching, maintaining my fork & actively supporting users for approximately that length of time.

Pete commented on 2019-04-03 08:46

I agree with Varakh, that it would be ideal if this package would follow the abraunegg branch. I'm now maintaining the onedrive-abraunegg package, and you are free to use that PKGBUILD here if you like. In that case, I would remove that package.

Also, I'm willing to be co-maintainer/take over the maintenance of this package if you like.

Varakh commented on 2019-04-03 08:42

I'd vote for changing this package(name) to the fork abraunegg did as it is actively maintained, contains fewer bugs and can be used in daily production.

@Scimmia I'd like to ask you to drop maintainer ship or have a common understanding with Depau about it.

I think every AUR user searching for this functionality will have benefits. Otherwise we, as an Arch Community, propose that new users should use the old service with tons of bugs and this just by the naming of the package.

Depau commented on 2018-07-31 00:10

abraunegg's code is indeed more up to date; it's currently 116 commits ahead of upstream and has most of the issues piled up in upstream's repo fixed.

I vote for his fork.

By the way, I forked this package and made one with his fork: link.

@abraunegg if you want to maintain it I can transfer it to you.

abraunegg commented on 2018-07-07 00:07

"You declare that it's abandoned and you're the new upstream because he doesn't respond quick enough. Things don't work that way."

I would say > 12 months non response to issues logged by other users despite some small commits (in Feb 2018) that did not fix user defects would almost constitute a 'im not interested anymore'. A response to posts and questions raised by myself and others asking 'have you abandoned this' have gone unanswered despite efforts.

I have no issue you in providing broken software that contains significant defects to the Arch Linux community (defects that have been fixed) - you are only doing yourself a disservice with your poor attitude below.

Scimmia commented on 2018-07-06 23:46

You declare that it's abandoned and you're the new upstream because he doesn't respond quick enough. Things don't work that way.