On Monday 14 Jun 2010 at 17:23 Ray Rashif wrote:

On 14 June 2010 14:00, Peter Lewis wrote:

...

kdeplasma-addons-applets-daisy http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31392

is unmaintained and duplicates

plasma-daisy-plasmoid http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203

so can probably be safely deleted.

Incidentally, is there any naming convention for KDE plasmoid packages? A quick search reveals a whole range of approaches:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=plasm&do_Search=Go

Appending -plasmoid seems the most popular, but having kdeplasma-addons or something simliar at the start of the package name also seems sensible.

From [ http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=plasma ]: kdeplasma-addons-applets-${plasmoid}

Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for removal.

Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first refusal. (cc Bram) Cheers, Pete.

2010/6/14 Ray Rashif : Hi,

...

...

Since the one following the naming convention is unmaintained, I would suggest adopting it with the contents of the other one. But I have no problem with deleting it, since it meets most of the criteria for removal.

Sounds sensible - I'm happy to adopt the unmaintained one, but I notice that Bram Schoenmakers is maintaining the other version so should have first refusal.

Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:

1) keep on maintaining current package 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan

Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else cares. :) Kind regards, -- Bram Schoenmakers What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. (Punch, 1855)

On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 22:04 Ray Rashif wrote:

On 15 June 2010 23:37, Bram Schoenmakers wrote:

...

...

Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:

1) keep on maintaining current package 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan

Is it that important, the naming convention? Still, I have no problem with taking option 2. Downside is that the current package loses its votes. Not that I attach much value to that, but maybe someone else cares. :)

Nope, not that important or big of a deal (at least not as long as it's in [unsupported]).

The only benefit is that you stay in line with the naming in [extra], so it would then be more search-friendly. And yes, the votes will be lost, but they can grow again :)

In any case, let us know which option you're comfortable with so we can remove one of them.

Yes, whatever the importance or lack thereof of naming conventions, I was just pointing out the duplication. There should be only one package, at least. Pete.

On 18 June 2010 03:51, Bram Schoenmakers wrote:

2010/6/15 Ray Rashif :

Hi,

...

...

...

Yes, it would be up to Bram. He could either:

1) keep on maintaining current package 2) disown current package and adopt the orphan 3) disown current package and let someone else (you) adopt the orphan

[...]

...

If you do go with (2), I'd suggest that you add:

replaces=('plasma-daisy-plasmoid')

I adopted the orphan package with the proper name and replaced it with my PKGBUILD. I will update this one in the future, so I'm fine with removing the old one (plasma-daisy-plasmoid, http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25203 ).

OK done, keep up the good work :) -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD