Ah, oops. I was not paying attention when I checked, and didn't realize they just did this in the latest revision of the project. Yeah, it should be fine to continue supporting this, at least for now. They may have had good reasons for dropping winelib support, though.On Wednesday, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM, Stelios Tsampas <loathingkernel@gmail.com> wrote:On 4/22/20 8:20 AM, Christopher Snowhill (kode54) wrote:
On Apr 21, 2020, at 3:28 AM, Stelios Tsampas via aur-requests <aur-requests@archlinux.org> wrote:
Are you suggesting that this package maintain a fork of the library which still supports winelib builds? Or instead that it continue to exist to build and install this old commit which will quickly become obsolete as further improvements are added past this commit?On 4/21/20 11:53 AM, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
soredake [1] filed a deletion request for dxvk-winelib [2]: https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/commit/436357e28096f5e1e25aa8b72fceb77123ea8404 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/soredake/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/dxvk-winelib/The version pointed by the tag still builds correctly under wine. The commit you are pointing to
is after the tag built by this package. And even so, since this package builds correctly for this version,
what is the problem with it existing? Why should this be deleted?
I am suggesting neither. If you bother to look at the commit history, since the tagged version `1.6.1` there
have been two commits at the time of writing, one of which is removing winelib support. There has been no
release neither any groundbreaking change. It is rather premature to request to delete a package that build the
latest version, especially without contacting the maintainer first about it.
Also, allowing it to exist to build the last tagged version with winelib support is not unheard of and it has been donewith numerous python packages in the past of example as python2 support was being dropped.
