On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) Evangelos Foutras wrote:

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas wrote:

...

hi,

wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504

abracos Antonio Lucas

I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.

I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]

The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more consistent system. In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed to adopt the correctly named package.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Alexander Duscheleit wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:31:07 +0200 Xyne wrote:

...

On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) Evangelos Foutras wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas wrote:

...

hi,

wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of this package (even the packages containing a version on them). what do you guys do in this situations?

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504

abracos Antonio Lucas

I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes.

I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which package we should keep. :]

The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more consistent system.

In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed to adopt the correctly named package.

I'm the maintainer of the wwt-svn package, the original name of the program was "Wiimms WBFS Tools", later renamed to "Wiimms ISO Tools". I didn't catch the rename fast enough and so Gordin created the wit-svn package.

On one hand I don't care either way which package remains, on the other hand I'll maintain my PKGBUILD anyway, since I neet those tools in a semi-professional way. (I "maintain" a Wii in a public place and the WBFS stuff gives us the possibility to restrict access to the Wii itself and the original media.) The build-system is homegrown and needs quite a bit of handholding to get a proper package. From a glance at the two PKGBUILDs it seems, mine is a bit more up to current standards, while Gordin's seems to "do" more, though I'm not clear to what purpose.

Thanks for jumping in. I've disowned wit-svn. Please adopt it and upload your package under the new name. When you're done, reply here and I'll delete wwt-svn.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Alexander Duscheleit wrote:

Finally, this is done! Sorry for the long delay, I've been ill for quite a while and had to catch up on work stuff like crazy.

The new wit-svn PKGBUILD now incorporates features from both former packages.

One question (purely for vanity reasons): Is it possible, to transfer the votes from wwt-svn to wit-svn before removing the former?

In any case, wwt-svn (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239) can now be removed.

Greetings,        jinks

Glad you're feeling better now. I removed wwt-svn. Unfortunately, it's not possible to transfer its votes to wit-svn. Cheers.