(sorry about the formatting. resend)
It's good that this is an open discussion so we can get all the facts
and misinformation presented for everyone to see and judge.
Let's get the main points addressed first. Details are next.
This is the subject of this discussion and the main points are about:
** AUR guideline on `Duplicate` packages, and Package Maintainers **
** Firstly: AUR guideline on `Duplicate` packages
This is the current rule:
> Check the AUR if the package already exists. If it is currently
> maintained, changes can be submitted in a comment for the maintainer's
> attention. If it is unmaintained or the maintainer is unresponsive,
> the package can be adopted and updated as required. Do not create
> duplicate packages.
This rule *is* the problem. This particular problem between wechat and
wechat-bin could have been avoided if this rule were not listed as such.
This is the basis for K and M.
Rule is rule when it's in effect.
But don't forget rules can be changed, even though changing a rule
can be hard and it takes courage.
This rule as of now is apparently not perfect yet works relatively well.
Are AUR staff willing to discuss and amend it to best cover more cases?
Or perhaps it's not worthy of the effort to gain marginal improvement.
By the way I believe my original question 1 remains unaddressed even if
this rule stays the same in the foreseeable future.
** Secondly: Package Maintainers
I give up on this.
Details is below and in first message of this thread(I don't think it's read
carefully or how can someone agrees that M did a good job there):
> Decisions have not been taken arbitrarily, Muflone is just trying to
> deal with this situation and I'm personally very thankful that someone
> is actually willing to try to solve this mess (excuse the term, but
> frankly that's what it is at that point). The rest of the staff approves
> Muflone's decision / judgment (which is purely about trying to make the
> package work, regardless of the maintainer).
> Such assumptions and judgments about staff decision's making are not
> welcomed here [2]. Keep in mind that this is voluntary work.
> Users are still free to maintain their own PKGBUILD locally or in an
> unofficial repository [4] though.
> Duplicate packages are not allowed, this is a clearly stated rule
> Some rules have to be established
> voluntary work
> Arch Linux is not run as a democracy
> (which, unfortunately, cannot always please everyone).
> cannot always please everyone
> Please, work _with_ us.
PMs: Just be fair as much as you can. It's not democracy, PMs/staff have
the final say. Your house, your rules. My way or the highway etc I get
it. I'm not asking any of that, any more. Just be fair. You manage the
domain and it has responsibilities.
Also bear in mind that it goes without saying you are probably doing 98%
of a good job keeping AUR the way it is, but at the same time you have
to be able to stand will-intended criticism be it true or false, improve
if you can on the true ones and not let the false ones get to you.
It's not easy or pleasant to do this. For all I care wechat-bin is the
2nd AUR package I use and I can live without it. I am volunteering the
same as you guys spending the time and effort to help perhaps make
things are a bit better, albeit not at a level you guys are contributing
and hiding behind curtains. I am just a user I have no right I did my
part to raise a flag. The rest is up to you folks. You guys are in charge.
"arbitrary" in my opinion is a neutral word and if it's not acceptable
especially given what M has done I'd say it's not my problem. Someone
needs to reflect on what's been said and done. Same goes for K who
whines about all of a sudden stones being thrown in a certain direction.
Since CoC is quoted, apply any penalty as you fit.
> Which is a totally unjustified and unacceptable behavior that resulted
> in a waste of time for everyone (both users and staff...).
I meant to say "wrongful" instead of "wrong". Excuse my english.
> After all, it seems like there isn't any other distro shipping wechat
[5] and seeing the
> controversy & the overall pain it causes from a
moderation stand point to our staff,
> that's an actual possibility we are
eventually considering.
wechat is a big deal in China, south-east Asia and it will keep expanding.
It's available in popular distro UOS and Deepin appstores in China before until not
long ago Tencent finally produces official binary based on QT which is a very positive
gesture well received by any Chinese linux user. Ask around. But hey if staff decides
to ban it based on misinformation, so be it.
> for the sole purpose of providing a freely accessible and community
> maintained package repositories.
Yet second opinion or choices nuanced as a `duplicate` package is not an
option in AUR due to various practicality reasons. What an irony.
Lastly, 50 votes gets you around top1500 among ~90k AUR packages. It is
significant in my view. And I told K the same thing: RESPECT.
Or just pull out the rule book, enforce the rule and wipe it clean, because
K brought it to your attention because of this xxxxxx rule. K and you
had to do it this way. What a world.
Peace.