[Dev] Update on the PKGBUILDs license

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:00 +0200 Denis wrote:
> And then only 1 line with Maintainer, like that:
> > # Maintainer: Parabola hackers <this mailing list>
> Or like that:
> > # Maintainer: A specific parabola hacker <Mail>   

i agree; but that would be a more significant break from the
arch-like convention - it would complicate the diff/merging of
most PKGBUILDs - i prefer to keep diffs as minimal as possible -
to have only one Maintainer line, would eliminate the helpful
hints "# Maintainer (arch):" which indicate where to find the
upstream PKGBUILD to merge against


On Mon, 2 May 2022 16:58:00 +0200 Denis wrote:
> some might have compelling reasons to add them
> as Maintainer instead of the Parabola project.

the most compelling reason, is that some PKGBUILDs are maintained
by users - the Maintainer email address, exists for bug
reporting - that would only work if we required all packagers to
read the mailing list - i think that everyone in the keyring
should be required to read the mailing list; but i dont think
that was ever made as a matter of policy

that is worth considering - i could be convinced to make it
policy; but based on the response to this thread so far, that
would entail removing most of the people in the keyring now

this is quite an important issue - i am somewhat discouraged
that no one has acknowledged my proposal to arch to fix this
issue upstream - if people are not paying attention to parabola
and/or actively contributing; we should consider retiring them -
i think at the bare minimum, devs should be participating in
important discussions, in order to remain on the "active" roster

over-all this is a step in the right direction - i have several
other house-cleaning proposal in mind - one of them is related to
the Maintainers and Contributors


> It doesn't say "don't touch, only <maintainer> can modify it".

that is certainly in accordance with adhocracy; but in practice,
some PKGBUILD maintainers complain when others modify the
PKGBUILD significantly - i have only intervened in cases where
the package in the repos is broken, _and_ users complain
repeatedly, _and_ the maintainer does not respond to the bug
reports - that really should not happen; but it does

furthermore, i really should not wait so long for the maintainer
to respond; but i do, out of courtesy - IMHO, one valid
complaint against an important package should be enough to
prioritize it; and more than a week with no acknowledgment from
the maintainer is unacceptable - thats not to say that the bug
must be fixed within a week; but the maintainer should
acknowledge that the bug report exists, explaining if it will
not be fixed promptly, and why, or asking that someone else
should do it this time, if time is an issue, temporarily

checking your email is easy - if a maintainer leaves a bug
report open with no acknowledgement for more than a month; that
suggests retiring that person from the "active" list; then
demoting the package to "team-maintained" - it is very easy to
add people back when they do have sufficient time to be
considered as "active" - in the real world that person would be
reprimanded or fired

that was perhaps drifting off-topic somewhat; but adhocracy
should not excluded professionalism - there is much we could
improve in that way; and i am sufficiently motivated recently, to
start making such uncomfortable policy changes