Not misinformation. Packages that are not intended to be drop-in replacements for the official packages should not have provides against those packages. Comments from 2024-04-28 at [a] and [b] describe the problem. One is written by a PM. Also, a different PM instructed me to remove versioned provides (from an unrelated package) because it was or could interfere with use of the official packages. I have seen similar comments, some written by other PMs, with similar instructions at other packages. [a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python310#comment-969868 [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python310#comment-969872 On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:01 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Request #68738 has been Rejected by bertptrs [1]:
The package is fine. The Python dependency listed should be assumed to be the current version in [core]. I left a comment with a suggestion on how to better communicate the dependency on 3.13, but even without that fix, there is no reason to delete this package.
Xiota, please don't spread misinformation: it is fine and even desirable for older packages to provide=python, though they ideally should label the version they provide.