[aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance. Regards. Keshav
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 . - Keshav
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
- Keshav
bump...
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
- Keshav
bump^2
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
- Keshav
bump^2
The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo". If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you did already put in place. Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if you think we missed something, please clarify. Thanks.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo <massimiliano.torromeo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
- Keshav
bump^2
The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo".
Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#D... should answer your question (or https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/t...). That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH. Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora.
If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you did already put in place.
Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if you think we missed something, please clarify.
Thanks.
If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail. That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other such removal requests. Regards. Keshav
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo <massimiliano.torromeo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Please delete elilo-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750 to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Keshav
Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
- Keshav
bump^2
The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo".
Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#D... should answer your question (or https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/t...).
That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH. Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora.
No, I did not and that's the reason I didn't feel like I was the best person to handle this, because I suspected I missed something on the subject. Also this are only my reasons, I only guessed that was the problem for the other TUs too.
If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you did already put in place.
Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if you think we missed something, please clarify.
Thanks.
If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail. That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other such removal requests.
I can only speak for myself, (as I did before) but sometimes I do not reply because I feel like I am not the best person that should handle a problem and I just wait for someone else to take on it. The 3 days + bumps were the signal for me that apparently nobody else wanted to do this, so I stepped up. Ignoring your emails was unintended. Anyway, the packages have been deleted now. Have a nice day.
participants (2)
-
Keshav P R
-
Massimiliano Torromeo