- Aur-requests - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7391] Deletion Request for fontconfig-enhanced-defaults
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for fontconfig-enhanced- defaults [2]: The package was originally submitted with the comment: "This a renamed version of fontconfig-good-defaults. A Trusted User removed it for a reason which is clearly invalid and will not respond to my emails. Next time a Trusted User thinks about deleting this, I challenge them to name one rule that it breaks and explicitly state how it breaks it. I also expect Trusted Users to hold all other packages in the Arch User Repository to the same standards." It is presumably obvious why evading a package deletion by renaming is not okay, but for additional context, the original deletion happened in this PRQ: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- requests/2015-September/008546.html Originally discovered because I was looking at the user's other package "update-pacman-mirrorlist". Is this kind of behavior a trend? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/fontconfig-enhanced-defaults/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7390] Deletion Request for update-pacman-mirrorlist
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for update-pacman-mirrorlist [2]: The AUR is not a hosting provider for source code, and whether that source code uses a compiler to compile to an ELF binary is irrelevant to that fact. Additionally, "reflector" which is in community and has existed far longer than this program, does everything that this program does, better than this program does (with the exception of the systemd timer for daily mirrorlist updates, because daily mirrorlist updates are objectively stupid). The maintainer has previously been warned against this in the comments, and justified using the AUR as a hosting provider because: "No, I really do not. What advantage would that bring? It would most certainly over complicate the PKGBUILD and management of the project, introduce additional potential for downtime, and require another trusted party to host code." In addition to deleting this pkgbase, someone with backend access should probably purge it too, since the aur.git backend really shouldn't have to store non-buildfiles resources in perpetuity (this is, after all, the reason the AUR code tries to reject all blobs above a certain size, and why actual hosting providers like Github exist). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/update-pacman-mirrorlist/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7384] Orphan Request for libtomcrypt
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

andreyv [1] filed a orphan request for libtomcrypt [2]: Package has multiple packaging issues. Maintainers are not responsive since last July. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/andreyv/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/libtomcrypt/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7466] Deletion Request for tor-browser-es
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

scan [1] filed a deletion request for tor-browser-es [2]: Este paquete se encuentra abandonado ya hace mucho tiempo y con graves problemas de seguridad. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/scan/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/tor-browser-es/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7439] Merge Request for firefox-aurora
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

awal [1] filed a request to merge firefox-aurora [2] into firefox-dev [3]: aurora is now renamed to developer edition, so firefox-aurora is the same as firefox-developer [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/awal/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/firefox-aurora/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/firefox-dev/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7394] Deletion Request for libnx
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

benalexau [1] filed a deletion request for libnx [2]: This package is now quite out of date and later versions are only available from upstream through user-specific FTP accounts. As such this package is no longer generally useful to the community. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/benalexau/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/libnx/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7395] Deletion Request for palemoon-26
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

trav90 [1] filed a deletion request for palemoon-26 [2]: The build configuration used by this package does not produce binaries that are acceptable for official branding and therefore are in violation of the Pale Moon Redistribution License located at https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml. Also, this is an old version that is no longer supported by the Pale Moon team. Add-ons using the Jetpack SDK will work again in the next (supported) release of Pale Moon, making this package unnecessary. Thanks for your time, Travis Wine (trava90) Pale Moon Project Linux Maintainer [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/trav90/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/palemoon-26/

3 3

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7398] Deletion Request for zyn-fusion
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

LionKingDabs [1] filed a deletion request for zyn-fusion [2]: Umm they didn't release the source code of the new UI yet. I don't think it's fair [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/LionKingDabs/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/zyn-fusion/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7400] Orphan Request for jdupes
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

surefire [1] filed a orphan request for jdupes [2]: Maintenance is not carried out properly. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/surefire/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/jdupes/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7489] Orphan Request for imagej
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

greyltc [1] filed a orphan request for imagej [2]: The maintainer isn't fixing the broken PKGBUILD after more than a month. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/greyltc/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/imagej/

1 1