Hello, You guys only have half the story here. Xavion has been really obnoxious: - Saying things like "let me remind you that you're not a TU" to a friendly comment from another user on AUR, suggesting that he did not host his script/application directly in the package - Asking if the people involved "doesn't have better things to spend your time on", when one user and two TUs suggested that it might be a good idea that the script/application was not hosted directly in the package. An alternative PKGBUILD was even supplied, where the script was hosted elsewhere. In the end, after much back and forth, the comments for the "popular-packages" package on AUR was filled with discussion about where and how the script should be hosted, sprinkled with random insults, with _nothing of interest what so ever_ for casual users that just wanted to install the package. So, I deleted all the comments, which is a decision I fully stand behind. There were only noise there. There is also another mailing list thread for this particular case, which should provide more than enough room for discussing this issue, and which is a more appropriate place than the AUR package comments. So, Kyle, sorry for deleting your comment, I found it better to delete all of them than leaving just one strand of the discussion. Thank you for your understanding. Dave, don't be so quick to judge. And Xyne, stick your hot coals elsewhere. -- Sincerely, Alexander Rødseth xyproto / TU

You guys only have half the story here.

If this is the case, do what forum moderators do and leave a little note explaining what was moderated away and thus why moderation took place to begin with. This goes a long way to dispelling he-said-she-said crap, especially when the moderated user has the combative history you mention (and he displayed, for that matter).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Xavion <xavion.0@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

I had a feeling this matter would balloon out of proportion, so I took a screenshot of the comments <http://i.imgur.com/nA5cK.png> before they were deleted. After these, the next two were supplied by Alexander (xyproto) before he wiped them all. The first of these seems to be a bit petulant in my opinion. It looks like he became a bit peeved and intimidated when I mentioned being qualified.

Alexander's (xyproto) first:

...

Your "well and truly qualified" statement is meaningless, unless you are aware of the qualifications of the people you talk to here, which I assume you are not. It's also offtopic.

Fine.

Alexander's (xyproto) second:

...

Removing all the comments, as they don't really add anything to the information about the package.

@ keenerd I didn't ignore your comment; I responded to it within a day. You then ignored my comment! You should get your facts straight before accusing. By the way, thanks for attempting to pick faults with eight of my PKGBUILDs overnight. Forgive me for thinking that you've got even more spare time on your hands than Alexander does. Also, where does it say on the ArchWiki that small Bash scripts must be housed outside of the tarball? You've made this change to my popular-packages<https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/popular-packages/>PKGBUILD without noting where it states that doing so is mandatory. I also don't think this should have happened because Alexander (xyproto) himself wrote in the comments linked above that I didn't actually have to make that change!

@ Dave & Xyne I appreciate your balanced comments. It's good that you haven't taken one side of the story and discarded the other. I just want to note - for the billionth time - that I didn't disregard official guidelines in the PKGBUILD. A full explanation of this is available in the aforementioned comments log.

@ Alexander (xyproto) It's pretty obvious to all but the bleakest of minds that you deleted the first round of comments because I defeated all of your arguments and made you look silly. There's no way you'll ever admit to this, which is why you simply deemed the comments irrelevant instead. Also, you have carefully dodged the matter of the second round of comment deletions. You've only elaborated about your decision to delete the first round, which wasn't what I was complaining about in the first place! My issue was that someone then deleted my next comment, which was the only one listed there at the time: "As I'm the author of this little script, I will always want it to remain in the AUR". It will be interesting to see whether you have the balls to admit to deleting this isolated comment as well. The next step would be for you to formulate a semi-plausible reason for doing so in an attempt to trick anyone reading this thread.

-- Regards, Xavion.

This is not a channel for personal attacks please do not try to make it one - -- Sent from my Android Phone. Daniel Wallace Arch Linux Trusted User GTManfred -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQFUBAEBCAA+BQJQ0EdtNxxEYW5pZWwgV2FsbGFjZSAoZ3RtYW5mcmVkKSA8ZGFu aWVsLndhbGxhY2VAZ2F0ZWNoLmVkdT4ACgkQX6XlVE8BDUicHwf+OE8t3LtF9oyK INqvnRFn0k7Lb0LJdg5IQI7DDnI4iYzd5+fWtXwn3J/GN/bGY7MjZXe5qFKvphMU 9Dh3/JC/1q6MyLmTYNvU53Il2Po8n0Ii808h0TMVbTvs/TmPrX/VBY2ElKnHpcH4 +/dd1UluJoKQgoDWwk1QIVfnHCTyPS4KSg1cH+43YouDd3IkeQtH2d3p+y4J3ALJ j9gAApENUF+nO0roWtpzV0WJvX3FBNET5F17J4rwvuvv3KV0rN/C/74k3zanMl1/ uXfpiM0elynkNTM5QqJj4gx8zYkt3NuIOG0GZXzpPWUfZuZJKxhR2WwX/1vttyss oN8p+GLn2w== =Bref -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 12/18/12, Xavion <xavion.0@gmail.com> wrote:

I didn't ignore your comment; I responded to it within a day.

You did not modify the pkgbuild to match the best practices that TUs recommend. My apologies for confusing "not acting on" with "ignoring".

By the way, thanks for attempting to pick faults with eight of my PKGBUILDs overnight. Forgive me for thinking that you've got even more spare time on your hands than Alexander does.

Yes, that is our job. We are supposed to keep the AUR a safe place for people. Your pkgbuilds are well outside the norm of acceptable. And I'd rather fix the worst of your habits now, instead of stretching it out.

Also, where does it say on the ArchWiki that small Bash scripts must be housed outside of the tarball?

Unfortunately it appears the "AUR User Guidelines" page has been removed from the wiki. It contained general suggestions such as not including binaries or source files in the tarball. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Several other Trusted Users have wanted to simply delete your crap and would have if I did not take the time to rework popular-packages. But you are actively refusing to clean up your pkgbuilds. You are generally going out of your way to make your pkgbuilds confusing. Here are some examples, which I had commented on and which you are being argumentative over:

http://J7Z.Xavion.name

Using a third-party redirector when there is a perfectly good URL. There is no reason to do this, except to spy on the people clicking the link.

""${srcdir}"/${pkgname}-${pkgver}"

Misleading quoting. $srcdir is not actually quoted here, and many users with a poor understanding of Bash would miss that.

pkgname=${company}-${product} url="https://secure.${company}.com/UK/products/${product}/"

Over use of variable substitution. Once again, confusing things for the people who use your packages. The only reason for variable substitution is to reduce the amount of work you need to do when updating a package. It is also considered good form to preface custom variables with an underscore or two, to avoid nuking variables in use by makepkg. Right now you are walking a line between malicious and incompetent. Please clean up your packages. -Kyle