On 11/6/18 4:55 PM, Aaron Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:10:56 -0500 Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/5/18 4:56 PM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
aaronfischer [1] filed a deletion request for emma [2]:
[...] For that, deleting the package is the proper way.
Although the homepage is down, the source code archive is still available. And the github repo appears to be someone's totally unaffiliated mirror, so it does not need to be taken as the gospel home.
Dead code is not always dead -- does it work okay? Do people use it? I see one vote from 2018-05-23.
With this in mind, do you desire to reconsider this deletion request?
The project itself has no relevance any more and there is nobody actively maintaining it. I thought it would be the best to delete the "emma" package and if there is any demand, create a "emma-git" package with the new source. If this is not an option, I can change the source to GitHub and adjust the PKGBUILD so that the project builds again. But the project should in any case renamed to emma-git, so I can remove the version number.
Well, I have no idea how much demand there is for it, that's why I asked you. :p But as I said, I can confirm it currently builds successfully, since the source is still available even though the project homepage is not. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User