[arch-dev-public] [arch-commits] CVS update of extra/science/plotutils (PKGBUILD)

[Dan McGee]

On 10/12/07, Damir Perisa <damir at archlinux.org> wrote:
>     Date: Friday, October 12, 2007 @ 21:29:35
>   Author: damir
>     Path: /home/cvs-extra/extra/science/plotutils
>
>    Added: PKGBUILD (1.1)
>
> upgpkg: plotutils 2.5-1
>
>
> ----------+
>  PKGBUILD |   33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
>
> Index: extra/science/plotutils/PKGBUILD
> diff -u /dev/null extra/science/plotutils/PKGBUILD:1.1
> --- /dev/null   Fri Oct 12 21:29:35 2007
> +++ extra/science/plotutils/PKGBUILD    Fri Oct 12 21:29:35 2007
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +# $Id: PKGBUILD,v 1.1 2007/10/13 01:29:35 damir Exp $
> +# Maintainer: damir <damir at archlinux.org>
> +# Packager: Maksim Sipos (maxsipos at gmail dot com)
> +
> +pkgname=plotutils
> +pkgver=2.5
> +pkgrel=1
> +arch=('x86_64' 'i686')
> +pkgdesc="Set of utilities and libraries for plotting."
> +url="http://directory.fsf.org/graphics/plotutils.html"
> +license=("GPL")
> +depends=("libpng" "gcc-libs" "libxaw")
> +makedepends=("flex")
> +# _patches=""
> +source=("http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/plotutils/$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz" \
> +       ${_patches})
> +options=('!libtool')
> +
> +build() {
> +  cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-$pkgver
> +#   for patch in ${_patches}
> +#   do
> +#     patch -Np1 -i $startdir/src/$patch
> +#   done
> +  ./configure --prefix=/usr \
> +       --with-gnu-ld \
> +       --with-x \
> +       --enable-libplotter \
> +       --enable-libxmi
> +  make || return 1
> +  make DESTDIR=$startdir/pkg install
> +}
> +md5sums=('0d6855cce17832afe2ff75c26a57be49')
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch-commits mailing list
> arch-commits at archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-commits
>

OK, I don't want to start a flame war here, just a healthy discussion.
Obviously Damir uses all these science packages and is willing to
maintain them, so that is why they end up in the extra repository. But
I'd like to pose a question to the developers- do these pacakges
truely belong in extra?

Considering we already have enough issues with orphaned packages and
such, I feel like we should be a bit more strict when adding packages
to our developer repositories. Even if we have a maintainer now for a
package, as soon as a dev decides to depart our ranks we could be left
with well over 100 packages no one wants to maintain. I feel like this
is the reason there are still several packages in extra that have been
orphaned and un-updated for over 2 years.

The above was mostly opinion-free, so my last paragraph will be my
opinion. I feel like packages like this belong in community or
unsupported, not extra. We no longer look at community of less of a
repo than extra- the only difference is who can place packages there.
The community has always filled a great role as having some of the
more niche packages, and most science stuff belongs in this category.
And guess what the best part is? Even if you are a dev, you can build
and upload packages to community.

To Damir- this isn't directed at you as much as our general policy,
which I believe we should work on setting so that all developers know
what is acceptable and not acceptable. I'm sure other developers have
added packages mostly for their personal use as well.

-Dan