Am 09.02.2019 um 14:49 schrieb Xyne:
On 2019-02-09 14:36 +0100 alad via aur-general wrote:
The "original" lsf looks like a joke/troll package to me, rather than "trivial". I'd have deleted it even without community duplicate.
Alad To me it just looks like the package of someone discovering bash programming with ANSI escape codes and wanting to share. The fact that it's on github with a README.md and a preview is an argument against it being a joke/troll.
Please explain why you feel differently and why such packages should be removed from the AUR. What exactly are your criteria for allowing a package to remain?
The discussion is important because we need to have a general consensus on deletion criteria. Rogue TUs can't be allowed to roam the AUR deleting whatever they personally don't find useful on a given day.
Xyne
For the record: I did not delete, request for deletion, nor upload apackage with same name to community. When I look at the removed package however, I see a bash script which takes up all available resources to display an animation which may induce severe health issues to some users, i.e. induce epileptic attacks. When the package furthermore has no other defined purpose - as Morten pointed out, this is clearly something overly specialized - *and* the deletion was handled according to procedure (with a deletion request, see below), then I don't see the issue. On the deletion request: it can be seen at [1]. It likely should have been accepted by a different TU than the requester, as well as given more time than 11 minutes before acception. Now if this were some systemic issue, rather than the occasional mistake any of us might make, then I could see why we'd have this discussion. In my experience, it is the occasional mistake. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2019-February/029689.html Alad