On Thu, 2020-12-31 at 20:51 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
I don't acknowledge the "compromise" of using a name you know is confusing, merely due to your inability to get your preferred name.
You can't just *ignore* all criticism about the name by saying "well, I wanted it to be short and simple and I had no choice, don't look at me, nothing is my fault".
The fact that nightly *in common with VCS* is assumed to be "development" editions and AU helpers auto-update them with a --devel flag (not a --vcs flag, mind you), is not justification to upload a package with false messaging; once again, pipewire-gstreamer-git would fulfill this criteria.
I never denied that -nightly was a bad choice, but pipewire-gstreamer- git doesn't look good either. It sounds like gstreamer is specifically enabled (in contrast to the official package) for some reason.
So you think you "don't need to" elucidate the difference between your package, and the package that came first (several years ago), because "my package is better, therefore I don't need to describe why"?
If there are two packages, they MUST provide some method of distinguishing between them to the average user. As the one that came second, it falls to you by default, to clarify things to users -- and to justify the package's continued existence as not being a duplicate.
Fine, I now understand that "first come first use" always have higher priority. I am willing to accept this, but is it written somewhere? If not, I hope you can make it clear in the future.
The only reason I even know it's different under the hood is because I acquired privileged information first; it wasn't obvious at all.
I admit it isn't obvious from just the package name, but I am curious, what kind of privileged information do you need to acquire when you can just look at the PKGBUILD to find the difference?
Your basic approach here seems to be "I think the other maintainer sucks at maintaining, therefore I can do whatever I feel like and if anyone is confused, it's the other maintainer's fault for sucking at being a maintainer".
That was never the intention. I am simply not satisfied with any possible workarounds we have for now, that's why I am trying to discuss for a better solution. If that looks bad to you then I feel sorry.
The only thing you're convincing me of, here, is that maybe I shouldn't trust you in the future, period. Is your insistence that rules don't apply to you, indicative of some deep-seated desire to experience an account suspension? (Please say "no"... and please make your actions say "no" too...)
Well, now you would like to assume that I intend to be malicious and you are prepared to apply restrictive measure, just because I have some opinions you don't agree with in some email exchanges? Or is my uploading of pipewire-nightly such an unforgivable violation of some rule that must be corrected with an account ban? To save both of us some trouble I will now step out of this as you wish. Best regards, hexchain