> We've already acknowledged that they are not the same.

No, we can only acknowledge that we disagree on that point.

I believe that Trusted Users are trusted to enforce some quality guidelines on AUR.

Otherwise AUR will just descent into more and more chaos.

Which does not benefit either users, nor maintainers or TU's themselves.

When an Electron (Javascript) application is already properly configured and hosted in Arch repo, it is detrimental to have on AUR a differently packaged copy of the same internal contents with unnecessary and potentially insecure duplicated chromium/electron runtime.

You have not refuted the validity of any of my points above.

On 17 June 2023 19:41:05 GMT+02:00, Ashleigh Rowe <administrator@hax.ie> wrote:

In your opinion, maybe. but to anyone who actually prefers appimages? Not so much.
Just drop it. We've already acknowledged that they are not the same.

On 17/06/2023 17:37, Marcell Meszaros wrote:

I am not at all against AppImage.

But the latest wire-desktop is in Arch repo, so having wire-desktop-appimage in AUR is pointless.

On 17 June 2023 18:23:08 GMT+02:00, Ashleigh Rowe <administrator@hax.ie> wrote:

One can also install many things on the AUR by using flatpak or a package manager. Does not mean they should be removed.

Just stop with the seeming anti-appimage, ok?

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023, 13:51 Marcell Meszaros, <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:

One can also install a standalone AppImage file by running it. It does not need to be packaged via an AUR PKGBUILD.

On 16 June 2023 18:55:00 GMT+02:00, Ashleigh Rowe <administrator@hax.ie> wrote:

Hi Marcell,

That may be the case, but there are many reasons to want to use an appimage over a natively installed application. And, given that it is not the same package, it need not be deleted. Taking the same logic to it's extreme, one could argue that a -git and a -bin version of a package need not both be on the AUR, as for users, it is the same.
We both know, however, that this is not the case.

On 16/06/2023 17:31, Marcell Meszaros wrote:

> So, by your own admission, it is not a duplicate of a repo package then?

Hi Asleigh,

Thank you for your reply.

The way I see it, the Arch repo version integrates better with the system and does not include unnecessary bloat.

The AUR AppImage version carries its own Electron runtime rather than using one available from Arch repo.

The feature set is the same.

So, for all intents and purposes, the AUR package is the same for users.

Except the latter takes up more space, and is potentially more insecure

There are frequent updates of Electron in repo.
The AUR package won't update its built-in electron separately.

On the other hand, repo's wire-desktop package will always use the latest repo-updated version of its electron runtime.

All in all, the AUR version is an inferior duplicate.

In my understanding, it is only useful to have AppImage packages of especially Electron-based applications on AUR if the Arch repo does not carry that application.

Cheers,
Marcell (Mars)

On 16 June 2023 17:23:12 GMT+02:00, Ashleigh Rowe <administrator@hax.ie> wrote:

So, by your own admission, it is not a duplicate of a repo package then?

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 16:20, <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for wire-desktop-appimage [2]:

Duplicate of repo package, not needed:

https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/wire-desktop/

This is an Electron-based application, so there is no benefit in using
this AppImage in a PKGBUILD. The repo version has the exact same
application code.

And repo verison is even better because it does not duplicate the
electron runtime, but depends on the relevant repo electron package.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wire-desktop-appimage/