[aur-requests] [PRQ#26623] Deletion Request for python2-rpi.gpio
FabioLolix [1] filed a deletion request for python2-rpi.gpio [2]: Specific for ARM hardware [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/FabioLolix/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python2-rpi.gpio/
What is wrong if this package is ARM (and RPi) specific? AUR is available on ArchLinuxARM and used by many people (including me). I don't think "Specific for ARM hardware" is a valid reason to delete package. -- Alex Stelmachonak mail@ava1ar.me On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 13:57, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
FabioLolix [1] filed a deletion request for python2-rpi.gpio [2]:
Specific for ARM hardware
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/FabioLolix/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python2-rpi.gpio/
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:06:46PM -0400, Alex Stelmachonak via aur-requests wrote:
What is wrong if this package is ARM (and RPi) specific? AUR is available on ArchLinuxARM and used by many people (including me). I don't think "Specific for ARM hardware" is a valid reason to delete package.
Account has been suspended while I figure out why they are sending a fuckton of requests while not checking if they should or not. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
On 6/24/21 2:23 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:06:46PM -0400, Alex Stelmachonak via aur-requests wrote:
What is wrong if this package is ARM (and RPi) specific? AUR is available on ArchLinuxARM and used by many people (including me). I don't think "Specific for ARM hardware" is a valid reason to delete package.
Account has been suspended while I figure out why they are sending a fuckton of requests while not checking if they should or not.
Well uhhhhh funny story that: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch. It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Il 24/06/21 20:34, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests ha scritto:
On 6/24/21 2:23 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:06:46PM -0400, Alex Stelmachonak via aur-requests wrote:
What is wrong if this package is ARM (and RPi) specific? AUR is available on ArchLinuxARM and used by many people (including me). I don't think "Specific for ARM hardware" is a valid reason to delete package. Account has been suspended while I figure out why they are sending a fuckton of requests while not checking if they should or not.
Well uhhhhh funny story that:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch
I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the*Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch.
It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages.
Exactly for that reason
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:34:24PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
On 6/24/21 2:23 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:06:46PM -0400, Alex Stelmachonak via aur-requests wrote:
What is wrong if this package is ARM (and RPi) specific? AUR is available on ArchLinuxARM and used by many people (including me). I don't think "Specific for ARM hardware" is a valid reason to delete package.
Account has been suspended while I figure out why they are sending a fuckton of requests while not checking if they should or not.
Well uhhhhh funny story that:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch
I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch.
It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages.
There is a difference between Manjaro, a derivative distribution, and someone providing a port of our distribution adding PKGBUILDs to the AUR. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
On 6/24/21 2:39 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:34:24PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:>> Well uhhhhh funny story that:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch
I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch.
It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages.
There is a difference between Manjaro, a derivative distribution, and someone providing a port of our distribution adding PKGBUILDs to the AUR.
What is the difference here, other than "we like you more"? No one has argued that AUR packages should not include arch=('aarch64') or source_aarch64=(). And even my pacman-git PKGBUILD includes pacman.conf.arm hardcoding ARM repositories and a gigantic and slightly annoying to maintain loop case $CARCH in .... esac to set up makepkg.conf with the right flags. But this is in *addition* to providing x86_64 support for the package listing. I don't see any reason to permit "raspberrypi-udev" but forbid Manjaro's pacman-mirrors script. Both of them are useless to Arch users, but do something on another distro (ALARM is still considered !notarch, after all). Other than explicitly and publicly playing favorites. Is that the message we're trying to send? -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:51:23PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
On 6/24/21 2:39 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-requests wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:34:24PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
Well uhhhhh funny story that:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#arch
I know this is not listed in the rules of submission page, but it is in the general packaging guidelines, and it's not like we haven't been deleting packages in the past, for precisely this. The rationale being, the *Arch* User Repository is in theory supposed to be for packages which can be run on Arch.
It's the same reason we delete Manjaro-specific packages.
There is a difference between Manjaro, a derivative distribution, and someone providing a port of our distribution adding PKGBUILDs to the AUR.
What is the difference here, other than "we like you more"?
Are you going to tell archlinux32 and Arch Linux ARM "yo bois, get your own AUR?". What is the incentive for people to even consider contributing to our distribution then?
I don't see any reason to permit "raspberrypi-udev" but forbid Manjaro's pacman-mirrors script. Both of them are useless to Arch users, but do something on another distro (ALARM is still considered !notarch, after all).
Arch users use archlinux32 and Arch Linux ARM. Arch isn't *just* the x86_64 port.
Other than explicitly and publicly playing favorites. Is that the message we're trying to send?
Someone want to provide a port. Where in the world is that not enough reason to actually play on the same team? Why did we even help them coordinate the IRC network move? This is some silly strict rule abiding which isn't even grounded in actual submission rules. The discussion is continuing on the private TU list. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
Request #26623 has been accepted by grawlinson [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/grawlinson/
participants (5)
-
Alex Stelmachonak
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Fabio Loli
-
Morten Linderud
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org