Good day's time Eli and Yen,
I hope you are well.
First of all, Eli, thank you for the answer. You are right, and it's difficult for me to call my own "deprecation way" somehow but "stupid". I wasn't happy, of course, about it but didn't mention the proper way like "Merge request" one month ago. I'm sorry for it and for that fact that it was in AUR for almost a month.
Because of it, I've fixed the package already.
Nevertheless, Yen, polysh package contains not an only script by itself but modules in /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/, see [1]. Regarding this, I couldn't say, that polysh doesn't provide modules. Moreover, when two months ago python was upgraded from 3.6 to 3.7, the package was broken without any hints. That's why I've thought that it's a good idea to add the prefix. IMHO, it doesn't contradict with [2].
I could only agree If you are 100% sure that the package must stay as is. But as I see, it contains prerequisites to be named as 'python-polysh'.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
On 9/1/18 11:53 AM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
> Felixoid [1] filed a request to merge polysh [2] into python-polysh
> [3]:
>
> Hi. I would like to "rename" this package into the proper convenient
> python=project
"proper". Yeah...
Can you not do nonsense like:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=polysh&id=483105dadedceb2ecbc5e7fba70bf58fd108bd1a
Leaving the package up for a month but making it only package a python
script exiting after some silly message? is *not* how you "deprecate" a
package, even if we assumed it was correct to deprecate it in the first
place.
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User