July 2024 - Aur-requests - lists.archlinux.org

[PRQ#50872] Orphan Request for mkxp-git
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 28 Oct '24

28 Oct '24

MarsSeed [1] filed an orphan request for mkxp-git [2]: Please kindly disown this package if no willingness to maintain. Another user already suggested enhancements in a comment made in Feb 2020. Now the package is broken and needs some TLC. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mkxp-git/

2 2

[PRQ#57379] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Sep '24

01 Sep '24

Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-beta-bwrap [2] into wechat-uos-bwrap [3]: This package is basically wechat-uos-bwrap, with no sandboxing which means this proprietary app can obtain any system data or user data The reason why wechat-uos-bwrap doesn’t come with beta in name is the fact that the app doesn’t recognize itself as a beta [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-beta-bwrap/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/

4 4

[PRQ#57762] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Sep '24

01 Sep '24

7Ji [1] filed a request to merge wechat-beta-bwrap [2] into wechat- universal-bwrap [3]: The native Linux client `Wechat (Beta)` was released as `Wechat (Universal)` on the Uniontech OS appstore officially [a], being a distinct package (`com.tencent.wechat`) from the previous `wechat-uos` package (`com.tencent.weixin`, available on AUR as `wechat-uos`[b] and `wechat-uos-bwrap`[c]). As this is official, having `beta` in the name does not make sense any more. To make this distinct from the previous package that's not built natively for Linux, I've created a new PKGBUILD `wechat-universal- bwrap`, please merge the `-beta` into `-universal`. [a]: https://bbs.chinauos.com/zh/post/17786 [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-uos [c]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wechat-uos-bwrap [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/7Ji/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-beta-bwrap/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-universal-bwrap/

1 1

[PRQ#57991] Merge Request for wechat-universal-bwrap
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Sep '24

01 Sep '24

Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-universal-bwrap [2] into wechat-uos-bwrap [3]: Duplicated package (see https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/list/aur- general(a)lists.archlinux.org/thread/T4I2ZYPOPHTIKYJTUSB7CMHSNA6BHIZ7/ for more details) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-universal-bwrap/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/

3 3

[PRQ#60974] Deletion Request for wechat-uos-bwrap
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Sep '24

01 Sep '24

7Ji [1] filed a deletion request for wechat-uos-bwrap [2]: The upstream name is Wechat (Universal), and it's released onto both the UOS app store and Kylin OS app store with such name. As its official usage is not limited to UOS it shall not bear uos in its name. As it also uses a mixed tech stack and -[GUI framework] suffix is conventionally used for GUI split package (e.g. transmission-qt is the GUI part of tranmission PKGBUILD) it shall also not bear qt in its name. There're already a lot of packging using wechat-universal as the name base, examples on AUR include -universal-privileged and -universal (without suffix) by lihe07 and -appimage by yifwon; examles outside AUR include -universal-flatpak ( https://github.com/web1n/wechat- universal-flatpak ) by web1n. For a complete history about official WeChat builds and why wechat- universal was chosen, please check the previous reply I made to the related aur-general thread: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- general(a)lists.archlinux.org/message/CFBKZH23X2ZP4VWEXR5HU4FL3ADAIQNL/ . About why deletion instead of merge: as the maintainer of -universal- bwrap and the co-maintainer of -beta-bwrap, I don't want unrelated comments in the history of -universal, neither its votes. While -beta- bwrap was created by leaeasy initially as a fork of -uos-bwrap, the packaging went a different way after I joined to help improving it and it became its own thing, their history is completely different as they had completely different user bases from day 1, and -universal-bwrap, created as a workaround for the AUR limitation that PKGBUILD could not be renamed (PRQ#57762 to merge -beta-bwrap to -universal-bwrap was filed as soon as I pushed the PKGBUILD), would want no history from -uos-bwrap. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/7Ji/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/

2 2

Catppuccin AUR Requests
by Robin Candau 27 Aug '24

27 Aug '24

Hello, We are contacting you about your recent AUR requests. While we understand your desire of unification for the Catppuccin packages in the AUR under a single ownership to "officially" maintain them (which is great), we would have preferred if those requests were done more appropriately. Indeed, uploading duplicate packages is against the rules of submission [1] and calling the "original" packages as such afterwards in your various requests isn't the proper way to go. If you, as the upstream, would like to take over, you should work with the existing maintainers and discuss (co-)maintainership. If it's also about setting a more appropriate name for the package (e.g. with the `catppuccin-` prefix), it should be clearly stated in the request as well which, on its own, is a more legitimate reason for deletion than stating that you would like the package you just created to become the new 'official' one for everyone. Basically, despite being upstream, we would have appreciated if those requests were done more collaboratively by contacting the maintainers of the "original" Catppuccin AUR packages and/or the AUR staff. Regardless, we once again understand your desire of unification for the Catppuccin packages and we are starting this discussion to decide how to go forward with this together. Please, give us a list of the packages you'd like to take over and specify if you want/need a rename for them. The current maintainers of the said packages should be contacted (either with a comment on the AUR Website or via email) to inform them of your intentions and, ideally, to get their approval. Thanks in advance! [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Aur_requests#Rules_of_submission -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz

2 2

[PRQ#61634] Orphan Request for fw-ectool-git
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 17 Aug '24

17 Aug '24

vladaviedov [1] filed an orphan request for fw-ectool-git [2]: Package has missing dependencies and doesn't build in a fresh install. Maintainer has not responded to comments asking to fix it or logged in in the past 8 months or so. I've sent an email, but got no response. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/vladaviedov/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/fw-ectool-git/

1 1

[PRQ#61608] Orphan Request for railwayapp-cli
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

vinfehring [1] filed an orphan request for railwayapp-cli [2]: This package is outdated, and has not been cared for in over a year. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/vinfehring/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/railwayapp-cli/

1 1

[PRQ#61605] Orphan Request for soci-git
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

Spixmaster [1] filed an orphan request for soci-git [2]: Package is outdated for months. No reply on a comment from october 2023. One optional dependency does not even exist anymore. Last commit was 3 years ago. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Spixmaster/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/soci-git/

1 1

[PRQ#61595] Orphan Request for python-icmplib
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

micwoj92 [1] filed an orphan request for python-icmplib [2]: Package is missing wheel+setuptools in makedeps. Mentioned in May and not fixed by maintainer. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/micwoj92/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-icmplib/

1 1