On 23 March 2024 16:50:53 GMT+01:00, Doug Newgard <dnewgard@outlook.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:34:28 +0100
>Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:
>
>> >Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Affected are 10 or so AUR packages, none of which have any viable use case
>> >> in lib32 at all, and never even had. 
>> >
>> >
>> >Really? So you can guarantee that nobody could be using these libraries for
>> >any local project? It doesn't matter in the least that no AUR package
>> >depends on it. 
>>
>>
>> Nobody pushed for getting fixes in this dependency chain for the last 2
>> years.
>>
>> AV1 and HEIF etc formats were introduced a decade and a half after Microsoft
>> forced practically all PC OEM's of the world to transition to x86_64. There
>> are no native libraries and applications that need such in lib32.
>>
>> And if a dependency chain for such a nonexistent use case is rotting for
>> years on AUR, that's pretty much all the evidence one needs to prove total
>> lack of demand.
>>
>> Just because Arch repo's x86_64 multimedia library chain got slavisly
>> recreated on AUR in lib32 without a thought whether there is any point at
>> all, it doesn't mean these packages are legitimate and needed entities.
>>
>> Basically these were pushed to AUR due to lack of understanding and due
>> diligence in this matter.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies my line of thinking.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Marcell (MarsSeed)
>
>Yes, your line of thinking is that if you're not aware of any usecase, it
>should be disallowed. Things don't work that way. I really don't know why you
>insist on picking fights with people, if they want to maintain it, that's up to
>them. If they're orphans, whatever, but just stop with all of the extra crap.


I'm not picking any fights.

The package was an orphan 5 months ago when I filed my deletion request. Then @jahway603 adopted it and didn't do anything to make its dependency chain buildable, but he immediately wrote a very hostile but otherwise ignorant and clueless response to the ML. Please get your facts straight before unfairly blaming me.

Instead, please refute my arguments point by point if you can, or stay away from pointless waste of each other's time and attention.


AUR submission guidelines don't say any package can be kept on it if it has an owner. It says packages here should be useful to more than just a few people. I think I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this dependency chain does not qualify as legit AUR entities. While you have failed to come up with any evidence to the contrary.

So this leads to the logical conclusion that it is you who is picking a fight, not me.

Please continue only in a constructive manner.

Btw if packages gets deleted fron AUR, their repos still stay on the git server. At any point in the future any user can recreate them. So if AUR will exist in a 10 or 20 years from now and some human or alien wants to put back some historic lib32 package that no one ever used, they will be able to revive it. XD