On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R wrote:

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R 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 Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R wrote:

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R 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 9:51 AM, Keshav P R wrote:

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote:

...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R 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.