Hi!
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
When I created the package I didn't see that: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lwks already exists.
Thanks!
Pyro Devil
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
When I created the package I didn't see that: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lwks already exists.
Actually, the project name is lightworks, not lwks, so I'd suggest to remove lightworks, and then rename lwks to lightworks.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Nowaker enwukaer@gmail.com wrote:
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
When I created the package I didn't see that: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lwks already exists.
Actually, the project name is lightworks, not lwks, so I'd suggest to remove lightworks, and then rename lwks to lightworks.
-- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
Merge lwks into lightworks and transfer maintainership to stjhimy, the current lwks maintainer?
On 2014-02-03 07:51, Nowaker wrote:
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
Actually, the project name is lightworks, not lwks, so I'd suggest to remove lightworks, and then rename lwks to lightworks.
Actually, though the project name is "lightworks", the packages distributed upstream are all named "lwks". I feel like, keeping in line with upstream's naming convention, it makes sense to keep the name "lwks".
The "lwks" package includes the word "Lightworks" in the description, which means it can be found easily. Also, the "lwks" package has 21 votes to "lightworks" 0.
That said, I have no personal experience with lightworks or how other distributions treat the package, so I have no solid opinion on the matter.
--Jeremy
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Jeremy Audet ichimonji10@gmail.com wrote:
The "lwks" package includes the word "Lightworks" in the description, which means it can be found easily.
You're right, even though I prefer 'lightworks' :-)
Also, the "lwks" package has 21 votes to "lightworks" 0.
'lightworks' has been uploaded to AUR only about 12 hours ago. 'lwks' has been submitted a year ago.
That said, I have no personal experience with lightworks or how other distributions treat the package, so I have no solid opinion on the matter.
--Jeremy
Actually, though the project name is "lightworks", the packages distributed upstream are all named "lwks". I feel like, keeping in line with upstream's naming convention, it makes sense to keep the name "lwks".
The "lwks" package includes the word "Lightworks" in the description, which means it can be found easily. Also, the "lwks" package has 21 votes to "lightworks" 0.
Yeah, but Arch Linux TUs seem to prefer "project name" than "package name proposed by the upstream". I have recently reported an issue stating that it's not possible to find PowerDNS with pacman -Ss powerdns. xyproto changed the package name from pdns (that's how the tarball is named upstream) to powerdns. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38231
On 2014-02-03 16:11, Nowaker wrote:
Yeah, but Arch Linux TUs seem to prefer "project name" than "package name proposed by the upstream". I have recently reported an issue stating that it's not possible to find PowerDNS with pacman -Ss powerdns. xyproto changed the package name from pdns (that's how the tarball is named upstream) to powerdns. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38231
That's valid. I don't honestly mind. Though the lwks package in the ALUR really needs to be updated to fetch the source from upstream (which it currently doesn't do).
Yeah, but Arch Linux TUs seem to prefer "project name" than "package name
proposed by the upstream". I have recently reported an issue stating that it's not possible to find PowerDNS with pacman -Ss powerdns.
Excellent point. The principle of least surprise would dictate that packages have obvious names light lightworks or powerdns.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Jeremy Audet ichimonji10@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but Arch Linux TUs seem to prefer "project name" than "package name
proposed by the upstream". I have recently reported an issue stating that it's not possible to find PowerDNS with pacman -Ss powerdns.
Excellent point. The principle of least surprise would dictate that packages have obvious names light lightworks or powerdns.
Status? There still are two packages: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lightworks
Am 24.02.2014 17:54, schrieb Karol Blazewicz:
Status? There still are two packages: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=lightworks
lwks by stjhimy: + automatic download of source + older + votes - name - maintainers "today" is two weeks so far
lightworks by PyroDevil: + name - needs manual download of source
My suggestion is merging lwks -> lightworks, add 'lwks' to description (so it can be found by that name) and add DLAGENTS overwrite to new package.
best regards, carstene1ns
Hi again!
I just wanted to remind you that my request for removal of my package still exists. ;)
Cheers, Pyro Devil
Am Montag, den 03.02.2014, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Pyro Devil:
Hi!
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
When I created the package I didn't see that: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lwks already exists.
Thanks!
Pyro Devil
On Fri 14 Mar 2014 at 17:36, Pyro Devil wrote:
Hi again!
I just wanted to remind you that my request for removal of my package still exists. ;)
Deleted, thanks. Sorry for the delay; not sure why this was overlooked.
Am Montag, den 03.02.2014, 14:19 +0100 schrieb Pyro Devil:
Hi!
I am the author of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lightworks/ and request removal because of duplication.
When I created the package I didn't see that: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lwks already exists.
Thanks!
Pyro Devil
I just wanted to remind you that my request for removal of my package still exists. ;)
Deleted, thanks. Sorry for the delay; not sure why this was overlooked.
There was a discussion about the package name; and the suggested move was to removing lightworks, and move existing lwks into lightworks.
On Mon 17 Mar 2014 at 19:24, Nowaker wrote:
I just wanted to remind you that my request for removal of my package still exists. ;)
Deleted, thanks. Sorry for the delay; not sure why this was overlooked.
There was a discussion about the package name; and the suggested move was to removing lightworks, and move existing lwks into lightworks.
The official package (deb) name is lwks, and "lightworks" is in the description. I see no reason to change it.
On Mon 17 Mar 2014 at 18:37, Jonathan Steel wrote:
On Mon 17 Mar 2014 at 19:24, Nowaker wrote:
I just wanted to remind you that my request for removal of my package still exists. ;)
Deleted, thanks. Sorry for the delay; not sure why this was overlooked.
There was a discussion about the package name; and the suggested move was to removing lightworks, and move existing lwks into lightworks.
The official package (deb) name is lwks, and "lightworks" is in the description. I see no reason to change it.
On second thoughts, maybe it should be listed as lightworks, but the maintainer should upload it under the new name and then request a merge here. Now lightworks is gone, he is able to.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org