On 5/3/19 9:19 AM, Lone_Wolf wrote:
On 03-05-2019 14:36, Lone_Wolf wrote:
On 02-05-2019 21:42, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Request #14809 has been rejected by polyzen [1]:
The package name should instead show what's been customized.
N.B. replying to only one of the 4 tickets so discussion stays focused.
Does that mean you prefer
customized-to-match-lone_wolf-view-on-packaging-mesa-trunk-and-llvm-trunk-llvm-git
over
lone_wolf-llvm-git ?
Because that's the customization these packages have.
Lone_Wolf
No need for any TU to reply anymore, as Eschwartz recent actions in deleting lone_wolf--lvm-git and the 5 other packages following that scheme make the answer very clear.
What packages? Those literally weren't packages. They were: pkgdesc="placeholder to reserve pkgbase/name for me, will become real package soon" with the commit message: "assign pkgbase to me". I don't see the need for uploading confusing packages that don't do anything and at the current point in time, if someone attempts to install them, they get an empty package. From a technical, procedural standpoint, it would make a lot more sense to first upload the *actual* packages, then submit merge requests to transfer votes and comments to the new package... ... rather than deleting the existing package by moving its votes and comments to something with a completely pointless PKGBUILD that doesn't do anything, resulting in the issue that for the duration of your "real soon", there is *no* package, at all. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User