On 6/22/21 1:48 AM, Caleb Maclennan via aur-general wrote:
As background, many years ago when working as an audio engineer I used to use it in production nearly full time. I'm quite familiar with it's past and the weird development practices upstream (such as forked toolkit versions). I am no longer in that field and only occasionally dabble with it for hobby purposes.
I grant that I'm not a part of the TU discussion, have little interest in the TU process, and only manage one significant package, but audacity is relevant to my interests as I am a community broadcast engineer and use arch pretty much everywhere in that context. I'm in audacity every day. It is as important to my work flow as my text editor is.
I fully support the efforts to tame audacity3 to the point that I took some shots at it privately. Keeping it out of the repos is a good idea. But most of my show producers and all of my clients use other operating systems and are already on audacity3, and I am in no position to dictate what version they can run. I already get aup3 files from clients now. After seeing packages repeatedly disappear, I created a package that compiled it as upstream demands, dumped it all in /opt, named it "audacity-bs" for obvious reasons, and called it a day. It is not a thing I would even think of putting on AUR.
But now my confusion at the disappearing packages is now replaced with confusion that using collaborative tools to solve a non-trivial problem is prohibited in this case where it is not in others, just as Caleb said. This feels like a political issue eclipsing a real technical issue for real users. If this is not an exception, there should be no exceptions and it should be made more clear.
I'm not interested in having it out on the forum or the AUR comments, I'm not much for that sort of thing. So I'm late to this party. But it is important enough to me to amplify my bafflement.