Please remove the removal request of libelectron-electron-meta
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be <http://to.be> removed when it shouldn't be and was kindly ask if the removal request could be removed as it would cause a lot of problems for not only me but all the users who use my software and break things by removing this essential meta package Thank you corey
Hi Corey
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be removed
Please provide valid reasons for this package existence and the reason to keep it in AUR. In the forum where you wrote previously someone suggested you some changes to the libelectron packages but they weren't addressed. Of course "it's useful for me" is not a meaningful reason. Regards Muflone
Hi there Muflone reason I want this to exist is 1. removing it would cause a lot of breakage and issues not just for me but for all the people using my package and I feel like this was a nuclear out of nowhere solution instead of just contacting me and making suggesting instead of threating to have my package removed and should have been handled way better then this. 2. I am one developer and this easily helps me maintain and control the electron versioning for all my software as I now use the repo packages of electron and the AUR if the package doesn't yet exist and if anything goes wrong or a update with electron causes any issues I can easily revert the version of just libelectron-electron-meta and fix the issues for all my packages instead of painstakingly go through each and every package and not have control of what version of electron my software uses This doesn't break any rules and this meta package makes it a lot more convenient to ensure that the users experience of my packages is consistent, well maintained and updated. Thanks for the reply corey On Tue, 23 Sept 2025, 12:48 am Muflone, <muflone@muflone.com> wrote:
Hi Corey
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be removed
Please provide valid reasons for this package existence and the reason to keep it in AUR.
In the forum where you wrote previously someone suggested you some changes to the libelectron packages but they weren't addressed.
Of course "it's useful for me" is not a meaningful reason.
Regards
Muflone
Hi again
1. removing it would cause a lot of breakage and issues not just for me but for all the people using my package and I feel like this was a nuclear out of nowhere solution instead of just contacting me and making suggesting instead of threating to have my package removed and should have been handled way better then this.
The 100% of the packages requiring libelectron-electron-meta are maintained by yourself so there wouldn't be any breakage, you should simply switch to the correct matching electron version. This dependency was added by you forcefully, it's not a strict requirements the application have. Reason 1 is invalid
2. I am one developer and this easily helps me maintain and control the electron versioning for all my software as I now use the repo packages of electron and the AUR if the package doesn't yet exist and if anything goes wrong or a update with electron causes any issues I can easily revert the version of just libelectron-electron-meta and fix the issues for all my packages instead of painstakingly go through each and every package and not have control of what version of electron my software uses
This reasons simply defines you use libelectron-electron-meta to eventually change the needed electron version without updating the packages, so at the actual state such package is 100% useless and you hope to use it the day the electron version would change, instead of updating your packages. To me this reason 2 is 100% invalid to keep the current libelectron-electron-meta package in the AUR. Please provide valid reasons to keep this package, if they exist, or change your packages dependencies to use the correct electron version (like all the electron packages - including the official one - do), drop the libelectron-electron-meta dependency or they will become broken when the libelectron-electron-meta package will be removed. Best regards -- Muflone
How is this invalid? there is no reason this should be removed and this package isn't breaking any rules or causing any harm, by removing libelectron-electron-meta people wont be able to launch their apps as they will be missing electron and I would have to go go through and update all my packages just to fix this while getting complains that the apps stopped working when there is again no reason to remove this package No that wouldn't make it useless at all, it's used to define a electron version and ensure stability and control of my packages, if anything does go wrong I can easily update the meta package to upgrade or downgrade and easily update all my packages electron version with the meta package, while using depends=electron-* is good and fine if anything goes wrong I will have to go through every package to manually fix an issue That's like saying why does Linux-meta exist, when this is for the exact same reason. I have given valid reasons, but you are not listening, just saying "they aren't valid" when there is no reason to even touch the package in the first place just shows you don't want to have actual discussion but to have it your way or the highway and be here to be the arbitrator of power where there is no need to be or reason. You even admitted that it will be broken if you remove it when you said earlier "so there wouldn't be any breakage," again why even touch my package when you can't even give a valid reason to even delete it when it's not breaking any rules and cuaing any issues. IT exists for more fine quality control. Corey Bruce On 23/9/25 06:13, Muflone wrote:
Hi again
1. removing it would cause a lot of breakage and issues not just for me but for all the people using my package and I feel like this was a nuclear out of nowhere solution instead of just contacting me and making suggesting instead of threating to have my package removed and should have been handled way better then this.
The 100% of the packages requiring libelectron-electron-meta are maintained by yourself so there wouldn't be any breakage, you should simply switch to the correct matching electron version. This dependency was added by you forcefully, it's not a strict requirements the application have.
Reason 1 is invalid
2. I am one developer and this easily helps me maintain and control the electron versioning for all my software as I now use the repo packages of electron and the AUR if the package doesn't yet exist and if anything goes wrong or a update with electron causes any issues I can easily revert the version of just libelectron-electron-meta and fix the issues for all my packages instead of painstakingly go through each and every package and not have control of what version of electron my software uses
This reasons simply defines you use libelectron-electron-meta to eventually change the needed electron version without updating the packages, so at the actual state such package is 100% useless and you hope to use it the day the electron version would change, instead of updating your packages.
To me this reason 2 is 100% invalid to keep the current libelectron-electron-meta package in the AUR.
Please provide valid reasons to keep this package, if they exist, or change your packages dependencies to use the correct electron version (like all the electron packages - including the official one - do), drop the libelectron-electron-meta dependency or they will become broken when the libelectron-electron-meta package will be removed.
Best regards
Just to add, I could eventually make the change but doing this is a destructive and problematic way to do it Muflone, why not leave the package and allow me to make to choice to how I package my own software? by doing this your going to start breaking the user space of apps on users all because you disagree with someone and no one wins here. This isn't the responsible or mature way to do things. No app developer is going to want to work in a hostile environment like this where their own platform will rip the rug from under them for no good reason, we should have a stable and more positive work environment here instead of this toxic place where it seems like no one has social skills ad thinks they need to tell everyone how to do everything or they get removed.. Corey On 23/9/25 11:17, Corey Bruce wrote:
How is this invalid? there is no reason this should be removed and this package isn't breaking any rules or causing any harm, by removing libelectron-electron-meta people wont be able to launch their apps as they will be missing electron and I would have to go go through and update all my packages just to fix this while getting complains that the apps stopped working when there is again no reason to remove this package
No that wouldn't make it useless at all, it's used to define a electron version and ensure stability and control of my packages, if anything does go wrong I can easily update the meta package to upgrade or downgrade and easily update all my packages electron version with the meta package, while using depends=electron-* is good and fine if anything goes wrong I will have to go through every package to manually fix an issue
That's like saying why does Linux-meta exist, when this is for the exact same reason.
I have given valid reasons, but you are not listening, just saying "they aren't valid" when there is no reason to even touch the package in the first place just shows you don't want to have actual discussion but to have it your way or the highway and be here to be the arbitrator of power where there is no need to be or reason.
You even admitted that it will be broken if you remove it when you said earlier "so there wouldn't be any breakage," again why even touch my package when you can't even give a valid reason to even delete it when it's not breaking any rules and cuaing any issues. IT exists for more fine quality control.
Corey Bruce
On 23/9/25 06:13, Muflone wrote:
Hi again
1. removing it would cause a lot of breakage and issues not just for me but for all the people using my package and I feel like this was a nuclear out of nowhere solution instead of just contacting me and making suggesting instead of threating to have my package removed and should have been handled way better then this.
The 100% of the packages requiring libelectron-electron-meta are maintained by yourself so there wouldn't be any breakage, you should simply switch to the correct matching electron version. This dependency was added by you forcefully, it's not a strict requirements the application have.
Reason 1 is invalid
2. I am one developer and this easily helps me maintain and control the electron versioning for all my software as I now use the repo packages of electron and the AUR if the package doesn't yet exist and if anything goes wrong or a update with electron causes any issues I can easily revert the version of just libelectron-electron-meta and fix the issues for all my packages instead of painstakingly go through each and every package and not have control of what version of electron my software uses
This reasons simply defines you use libelectron-electron-meta to eventually change the needed electron version without updating the packages, so at the actual state such package is 100% useless and you hope to use it the day the electron version would change, instead of updating your packages.
To me this reason 2 is 100% invalid to keep the current libelectron-electron-meta package in the AUR.
Please provide valid reasons to keep this package, if they exist, or change your packages dependencies to use the correct electron version (like all the electron packages - including the official one - do), drop the libelectron-electron-meta dependency or they will become broken when the libelectron-electron-meta package will be removed.
Best regards
Hi Corey
How is this invalid? there is no reason this should be removed and this package isn't breaking any rules or causing any harm,
I asked you to provide reasons to keep this package and the only reasons you provided are related to your workflow, to be able to change the electron version in libelectron-electron-meta instead of fixing the packages dependencies. This is not a valid reason to keep this package on the AUR as it doesn't fullfill the need to be useful to other users. It's only a fix for yourself to indirectly change the dependencies for your own packages. I already gave you the chance to fix your packages, also some users in the Arch Linux forum gave you the same hint which you ignored entirely. When the libelectron-electron-meta package will be deleted your packages requiring it will be broken as you refuse to set the appropriate correct dependencies. Best regards -- Muflone
Hi everyone, I can’t help but notice that all 31 packages depending on libelectron are thin electron wrappers around some website, mostly copy-pasted. libelectron itself installs three npm packages that should rather be packaged separately to allow other packages to depend on them as well. Instead of wrapping every website in electron, browsers can install a website as a PWA, so it appears like a native app with its own window. There is PWAsForFirefox [1] to do this in Firefox. Chromium-based browsers can do this natively (three-dot menu -> Cast, save and share -> Install page as app). If google-gemini-nativefier was removed, it would only make sense to remove these as well. Best, tippfehlr PS: yes, some of this email is copied from the one I sent earlier. I did not want to mix threads. [1]: https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
There is PWAsForFirefox [1] to do this in Firefox.
and hopefully, Firefox will soon get a native PWA support https://www.ghacks.net/2025/08/22/experimental-firefox-now-supports-progress... -- damjan
Hey Damjan thanks for the reply, yeah Firefox's PWA stuff is cool and very interesting but I wanted to create dedicated desktop apps tailed to each app/service mainly for Linux but other platforms and architectures but thanks for letting me know :) On 25/9/25 4:42 am, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
There is PWAsForFirefox [1] to do this in Firefox. and hopefully, Firefox will soon get a native PWA support https://www.ghacks.net/2025/08/22/experimental-firefox-now-supports-progress...
Also sorry for the multiple email replies but I had to add this to add to my point, do you realize how much time I am saving with this meta package, I am thinking and working smart not hard here as a single developer for multiple packages that depend on electron but I have way more control over electron versioning to ensure stability, if anything goes wrong I can simply update libelectron-electron-meta once to solve the issue for multiple packages allowing me to easily expand on more packages and quickly fix and maintain in case of any issues arise instead of either waiting for the developers and package maintainers to update or downgrade the electron package and be stuck in limbo, then what? I have to inform the users ooh I can't do anything about it and you need to wait until Arch or the electron devs fix the issue? nah, I can simply update the meta package to quickly resolve any issues. this isn't harmful to you of the users nor is breaking the rules So tell me why it needs to be removed when it's not affecting anyone nor breaking the rules, if you can't tell me why or where this breaks any rules then there is no reason to remove this and I feel like I am being targeted yet again for no reason. On 23/9/25 12:47 am, Muflone wrote:
Hi Corey
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be removed
Please provide valid reasons for this package existence and the reason to keep it in AUR.
In the forum where you wrote previously someone suggested you some changes to the libelectron packages but they weren't addressed.
Of course "it's useful for me" is not a meaningful reason.
Regards
Muflone
do you realize how much time I am saving with this meta package
What's stopping you from doing a sed replace from a small bash script? Would save you the time, and not clutter the AUR.
this toxic place where it seems like no one has social skills ad thinks they need to tell everyone how to do everything
This isn't winning you any points, maybe leave an email as a draft for a while next time if you're feeling frustrated, and get back to it a while later to revise it? It would help with the email being fractured too.
I would have to go go through and update all my packages just to fix this while getting complains that the apps stopped working
That's why you're being suggested to update them now, to avoid this situation. Am sure there's no issue with giving you a little bit of time for migration if you need it and ask for it. Martin On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 4:44 AM Corey Bruce <cdfrosty@gmail.com> wrote:
Also sorry for the multiple email replies but I had to add this to add to my point, do you realize how much time I am saving with this meta package, I am thinking and working smart not hard here as a single developer for multiple packages that depend on electron but I have way more control over electron versioning to ensure stability, if anything goes wrong I can simply update libelectron-electron-meta once to solve the issue for multiple packages allowing me to easily expand on more packages and quickly fix and maintain in case of any issues arise instead of either waiting for the developers and package maintainers to update or downgrade the electron package and be stuck in limbo, then what? I have to inform the users ooh I can't do anything about it and you need to wait until Arch or the electron devs fix the issue? nah, I can simply update the meta package to quickly resolve any issues. this isn't harmful to you of the users nor is breaking the rules
So tell me why it needs to be removed when it's not affecting anyone nor breaking the rules, if you can't tell me why or where this breaks any rules then there is no reason to remove this and I feel like I am being targeted yet again for no reason.
On 23/9/25 12:47 am, Muflone wrote:
Hi Corey
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be removed
Please provide valid reasons for this package existence and the reason to keep it in AUR.
In the forum where you wrote previously someone suggested you some changes to the libelectron packages but they weren't addressed.
Of course "it's useful for me" is not a meaningful reason.
Regards
Muflone
What's stopping you from doing a sed replace from a small bash script?
Would save you the time, and not clutter the AUR. Why would I do that and do a nonstandard script when I can just have a package do it also there isn't any cluttering, this is one meta package not harming you or anyone else while making it easier for me to maintain packages.
This isn't winning you any points, maybe leave an email as a draft for a while next time if you're feeling frustrated, and get back to it a while later to revise it? It would help with the email being fractured too.
what points? I'm not the one removing packages that don't affect or harm you for no reason and being toxic, so I have nothing to worry about, my email replies have every right and justification to be frustrated as this has feels targeted, doesn't break the rules or answer the following from my previous reply "tell me why it needs to be removed when it's not affecting anyone nor breaking the rules, if you can't tell me why or where this breaks any rules then there is no reason to remove this and I feel like I am being targeted yet again for no reason."
update all my packages just to fix this while getting complains that the apps stopped working
That's why you're being suggested to update them now, to avoid this situation.
Am sure there's no issue with giving you a little bit of time for migration if you need it and ask for it.
I don't need to change anything, everything is working fine as is Anyways the vote got rejected so there is no point continuing the conversation as it wont be removed Cheers Corey On 23/9/25 3:56 pm, Martin Rys wrote:
do you realize how much time I am saving with this meta package
What's stopping you from doing a sed replace from a small bash script?
Would save you the time, and not clutter the AUR.
this toxic place where it seems like no one has social skills ad thinks they need to tell everyone how to do everything
This isn't winning you any points, maybe leave an email as a draft for a while next time if you're feeling frustrated, and get back to it a while later to revise it? It would help with the email being fractured too.
I would have to go go through and update all my packages just to fix this while getting complains that the apps stopped working
That's why you're being suggested to update them now, to avoid this situation.
Am sure there's no issue with giving you a little bit of time for migration if you need it and ask for it.
Martin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 4:44 AM Corey Bruce <cdfrosty@gmail.com> wrote:
Also sorry for the multiple email replies but I had to add this to add to my point, do you realize how much time I am saving with this meta package, I am thinking and working smart not hard here as a single developer for multiple packages that depend on electron but I have way more control over electron versioning to ensure stability, if anything goes wrong I can simply update libelectron-electron-meta once to solve the issue for multiple packages allowing me to easily expand on more packages and quickly fix and maintain in case of any issues arise instead of either waiting for the developers and package maintainers to update or downgrade the electron package and be stuck in limbo, then what? I have to inform the users ooh I can't do anything about it and you need to wait until Arch or the electron devs fix the issue? nah, I can simply update the meta package to quickly resolve any issues. this isn't harmful to you of the users nor is breaking the rules
So tell me why it needs to be removed when it's not affecting anyone nor breaking the rules, if you can't tell me why or where this breaks any rules then there is no reason to remove this and I feel like I am being targeted yet again for no reason.
On 23/9/25 12:47 am, Muflone wrote:
Hi Corey
Hi guys I have been in conversation with a someone on my AUR package who decided to request my package to.be removed Please provide valid reasons for this package existence and the reason to keep it in AUR.
In the forum where you wrote previously someone suggested you some changes to the libelectron packages but they weren't addressed.
Of course "it's useful for me" is not a meaningful reason.
Regards
Muflone
participants (6)
-
Corey Bruce
-
Damjan Georgievski
-
Martin Rys
-
Muflone
-
Muflone
-
tippfehlr