The unflagging was not done out of spite. I overlooked the fact that the previous URL was out-of-date. Will try to be more competent next time. On 07/30/2018 09:15 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
On 07/30/2018 08:40 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-requests wrote:
I suggest you link to a release announcement or tarball next time you flag a package out-of-date. I suggest you become a competent maintainer. There is positively no requirement for out-of-date messages to contain either one, though it certainly does not hurt.
Unflagging it and refusing to update out of spite, when it took me all of one minute to find the release announcement linked right on the hugely visible download page (for their actual website, not the out of date url in the PKGBUILD), is... kind of odd.
And if you're simply the type of maintainer that doesn't really care enough about this package to, when informed of a new release, check up on it yourself, then I'd have to ask why you even bother.
...
Now admittedly this package uses a different url scheme than the one provided by the current download page, and at the same time the hdf5 people are exceedingly weird (for many reasons), but OTOH it looks like the download url in question is not very stable in the first place. Also maybe they stopped using it if they're not updating that directory anymore.
But I don't really see this as a reason to silently do nothing without bothering to check.