[PRQ#64317] Deletion Request for neovim-nonicons-git
dreieck [1] filed a deletion request for neovim-nonicons-git [2]: Upstream has no license, so this package must not exist. See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2202042#p2202042 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dreieck/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/neovim-nonicons-git/
dreieck [1] filed a deletion request for neovim-nonicons-git [2]:
Upstream has no license, so this package must not exist. See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2202042#p2202042
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dreieck/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/neovim-nonicons-git/
Upstream not having a license is not a reason to delete the pkgbuild. The builded packages are not redistributed from AUR Repackaging or compiling locally is fine (chrome, ffmpeg-full i.e.) if there are concerns like paid stuff (otf-helvetica-neue) or cracked games ok but is not the case, also give time to upstream to answer https://github.com/yamatsum/nvim-nonicons/issues/34
Request #64317 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]: [Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for neovim-nonicons-git. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/
Request #64317 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for neovim-nonicons-git.
Why this has been accepted? Not having a license is not an issue for AUR In the archwiki there was written to use `unkown` if license wasn't know
On 10/17/24 11:51 PM, Fabio Loli wrote:
Request #64317 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for neovim-nonicons-git.
Why this has been accepted? Not having a license is not an issue for AUR
In the archwiki there was written to use `unkown` if license wasn't know
The request was submitted by the maintainer themself, the package didn't seem to have any popularity (no vote nor comment) and the latest upstream commit is 2 years old. While not having a licence may not be an issue for the AUR, I don't think it's a good enough reason for keeping a package around that seemingly draw no attention and for which the maintainer themself express their intention of stopping maintaining it (by submitting a deletion request). No point keeping this package just for the sake of it in my opinion. I reckon I could have state that in the comment section when I accepted the deletion request however, sorry about that. With that said, if you're interested in maintaining this package, feel free to re-submit it :) -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
participants (3)
-
Fabio Loli
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
Robin Candau