Hi Johannes, Thank you for your reply. I recognized the possibility that this package could have been used with linopen. But I've observed that apart from that 1 user from 2021, nobody complained since that time that they need xdg-utils-no-open packaging to be corrected. Also, linopen is badly packaged, the source is not linked to external source, and after I found the external GitHub source, realized that linopen's 'open' script is 8 years old, from 2015, and unmaintained. Also AUR/linopen erroneously declares that it provides and conflicts with xdg-utils; both are incorrect. But the last comment on linopen's package was 3 years ago, apart from my comment about the source linking problem a year ago. For which I got no answer. 1 year should have been more than enough for *any* user to chime in, that they want the package fixed / updated (as it's also flagged OOD since that time). But no one responded. I do not see any point in keeping such abandoned packages on AUR, so after 1+ year of total silence, I've submitted a deletion request for linopen as well. (PRQ#42893). Consequently, I also do not see a pont in keeping this package; hence my current deletion request. On the other hand, if you say you really want to keep and use xdg-util-no-open, please state as such. In that case, I will revoke my deletion request for this package and for linopen. But that also entails that you take it upon yourself to make linopen a mandatory dependency of xdg-util-no-open, and keep the latter up-to-date like repo xdg-utils. And on top of that, you'll need to adopt linopen and fix its wrongly declared metadata, and use the externally hosted source (link in comment of linopen AUR page). If I were you, I think I would not go for keeping and maintaining these old solutions for a problem that's already been solved adequately by upstream xdg-utils. (It has a GitLab server: issues and patches are welcome.) I am awaiting your decision, and will act accordingly to accommodate your intentions. :) Cheers, Marcell (MarsSeed) On 27 June 2023 14:05:47 GMT+02:00, Johannes Frankenau <archlinux@johannes.frankenau.net> wrote:

Hi Marcell,

actually, I just remembered why the original maintainer didn't add those attributes. Because xdg-utils-no-open is meant to be used with packages like linopen, mimi, busking, or mimejs it should not provide or conflict with xdg-utils, because those packages already provide xdg-utils (to be correct only the xdg-open binary without the additional utilities). So, I believe I should revert my last commit here. That was the reason why I didn’t add provides and conflicts fields in response to the request from 2022.

Johannes

On 27 Jun 2023, at 13:49, Marcell Meszaros wrote:

...

After lingering in abandonment for the last 5 years, now after my deletion request, maintainer @frankenau added provides and conflicts fields requested by a user in 2021.

But I still see no point in keeping this package.

There is no maintained alternative of xdg-open on AUR, and that script is still needed by many applications.

So this package will just break lots of things.

Also it is still outdated compared to repo version of xdg-utils.

On 27 June 2023 12:23:20 GMT+02:00, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:

...

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for xdg-utils-no-open [2]:

Abandoned mod of repo's xdg-utils. Last updated in 2018.

Badly packaged: no provides or conflicts. Cannot be installed on most systems because of this.

There is only one comment: a user mentions this same problem in 2022-11. They got no reply from maintainer.

Better to delete this defunct package.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-utils-no-open/