25 Mar
2018
25 Mar
'18
2:05 a.m.
Request #10963 has been rejected by Eschwartz [1]: AFAICT this package is fine and the other package is wrong. The real issue is duplicate packages and naming schemes should be discussed politely with the maintainers of existing packages (who will make the final choice because it is their package and they have precedence). But there should only be one version of a given package. (FWIW I think the naming scheme for *this* package is superior.) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/