On 3/1/23 12:42, Robin Candau wrote:
Identifying not complying packages is surely helpful /if done properly/, but certainly not in that form. Once again, while we appreciate your will to help, no one asked or expected you going in such a hunt and reporting that much packages at once with the same predefined and vague message (" Not allowed by AUR submission guidelines"). Reporting needs a bit of interpretation and judgement regarding the rules (and the potential exceptions to them) before claiming a package goes against them or not. Reporting massively with a vague predefined message that way isn't helpful, it's actually counter-productive. First of all, as I already said to you, there's currently /way/ more than 80 000 packages in the AUR for 61 volunteers TUs to moderate them all. Please, understand that we cannot have eyes everywhere at once nor be aware of every AUR packages that exists.
I got it. Unfortunately it was too late. I was not aware of how report system works and that it sends direct emails. By deleting my package you've opened my eyes on how of a mess AUR state actually is. Cleanup is not easy, but doable I think.
And secondly, I don't think reporting a package for the sole reason that you think that "if mine has been deleted then this one should too" is a sane and appreciated approach.
Maybe guidelines should be expanded then. About what exactly considered a duplicate. How much change there should be to consider it a standalone package. (Significant patchsets or forks essentially? Simply changing the build options is not enough?) It definitely will make filtering easier.
Don't worry, regardless, the package you linked will be examined and "justice" will be made if needed :)
That was just an example. I don't mind about one particular package.