[PRQ#48746] Merge Request for conky-lua-nv
MarsSeed [1] filed a request to merge conky-lua-nv [2] into conky- cairo [3]: 'conky-lua-nv' is actually a duplicate of 'conky-cairo'. Lua support is mandatory on all conky 1.10+ versions. Both packages are built with NVIDIA and full Cairo support, despite the fact that conky-lua-nv does not list cairo as a dependency. As extra repo's conky is also built with Lua and NVIDIA features, keeping conky-lua-nv is superfluous. (Btw extra/conky also supports the cairo library, but does not seem to enable Lua bindings for that - there's a pending ticket for it: FS#77168 [a].) I've notified users of 'conky-lua-nv', via comments, to switch over to either extra/conky or to AUR/conky-cairo - first on 2023-08-20, then again on 2023-10-11. [a]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/77168 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/conky-lua-nv/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/conky-cairo/
Hello list,
Both packages are built with NVIDIA and full Cairo support, despite the fact that conky-lua-nv does not list cairo as a dependency.
As extra repo's conky is also built with Lua and NVIDIA features, keeping conky-lua-nv is superfluous.
I don't disagree with having packages merged but as also mentioned on the AUR page the conky-cairo package appeared on the AUR much later than conky-lua-nv with almost the exact compile flags (just check the git history for ~late 2016ish). At the time some or all of the added flags weren't available on the repo package (hence the package name). As new versions were published more features have been absorbed into the repo package. I guess at some point #77168 wil be resolved it will absord the final bits and we'll get rid of any additional packages and these absurdities, but that's not happening yet.
I've notified users of 'conky-lua-nv', via comments, to switch over to either extra/conky or to AUR/conky-cairo - first on 2023-08-20, then again on 2023-10-11.
The requester, for some reason I honestly don't understand, really wants to have conky-lua-nv deleted spamming both the aur-requests lists with frivolous requests and the AUR package page urging users to stop using this "obsolete" package. I honestly don't even care that much but the pushiness is annoying. Best
Hello list,
Both packages are built with NVIDIA and full Cairo support, despite the fact that conky-lua-nv does not list cairo as a dependency.
As extra repo's conky is also built with Lua and NVIDIA features, keeping conky-lua-nv is superfluous.
I don't disagree with having packages merged but as also mentioned on the AUR page the conky-cairo package appeared on the AUR much later than conky-lua-nv with almost the exact compile flags (just check the git history for ~late 2016ish). At the time some or all of the added flags weren't available on the repo package (hence the package name). As new versions were published more features have been absorbed into the repo package. I guess at some point #77168 wil be resolved it will absord the final bits and we'll get rid of any additional packages and these absurdities, but that's not happening yet.
I've notified users of 'conky-lua-nv', via comments, to switch over to either extra/conky or to AUR/conky-cairo - first on 2023-08-20, then again on 2023-10-11.
The requester, really wants to have conky-lua-nv (along with another couple dozen pages of packages in aur-requests) deleted spamming both the aur-requests list with frivolous requests and the AUR package page urging users to stop using this "obsolete" package. I honestly don't even care that much but the pushiness is annoying. Best On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 12:06, <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
MarsSeed [1] filed a request to merge conky-lua-nv [2] into conky- cairo [3]:
'conky-lua-nv' is actually a duplicate of 'conky-cairo'.
Lua support is mandatory on all conky 1.10+ versions.
Both packages are built with NVIDIA and full Cairo support, despite the fact that conky-lua-nv does not list cairo as a dependency.
As extra repo's conky is also built with Lua and NVIDIA features, keeping conky-lua-nv is superfluous.
(Btw extra/conky also supports the cairo library, but does not seem to enable Lua bindings for that - there's a pending ticket for it: FS#77168 [a].)
I've notified users of 'conky-lua-nv', via comments, to switch over to either extra/conky or to AUR/conky-cairo - first on 2023-08-20, then again on 2023-10-11.
[a]: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/77168
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/conky-lua-nv/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/conky-cairo/
Request #48746 has been Rejected by serebit [1]: The arguments made by the maintainer appear to hold up, and until https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1 is resolved, this package does have *some* reason to exist. Closing. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/serebit/
The arguments made by the maintainer appear to hold up, and until
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1 is resolved, this package does have *some* reason to exist. Closing.
Which arguments exactly? Repo package has all the features that this has. Only AUR/conky-cairo has more features than the repo package. Maintainer also said he does not disagree with the merge request, and that he acknowledges that the repo package has gained more and more features.
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1
This feature is the one that AUR/conky-cairo addresses, but not this one. Can you give valid, concrete reasons in favor of keeping conky-lua-nv too, apart from maintainer's sentiment?
I would ask that the maintainer open a request to merge the packages, then, given the comment history that I read shows you being belligerent about conky-lua-nv being unncessary as the maintainer rightfully defends a package that predates the one you claim to be superior. Marcell, you are not the deciding factor in a request being approved—ultimately, it is up to us to decide what is accepted and what is rejected. None of us have the time to keep up with your ten new package requests a day, much less write out lengthy "valid, concrete reasons" in an additional email when we decide to deny one of yours. I suggest you think on that. Campbell -------- Original Message -------- On 2/26/24 10:42 PM, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:
The arguments made by the maintainer appear to hold up, and until
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1 is resolved, this package does have *some* reason to exist. Closing.
Which arguments exactly? Repo package has all the features that this has.
Only AUR/conky-cairo has more features than the repo package.
Maintainer also said he does not disagree with the merge request, and that he acknowledges that the repo package has gained more and more features.
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/conky/-/issues/1
This feature is the one that AUR/conky-cairo addresses, but not this one.
Can you give valid, concrete reasons in favor of keeping conky-lua-nv too, apart from maintainer's sentiment?
On 27 February 2024 04:48:15 GMT+01:00, arch@serebit.com wrote:
I would ask that the maintainer open a request to merge the packages, then, given the comment history that I read shows you being belligerent about conky-lua-nv being unncessary as the maintainer rightfully defends a package that predates the one you claim to be superior.
Marcell, you are not the deciding factor in a request being approved—ultimately, it is up to us to decide what is accepted and what is rejected. None of us have the time to keep up with your ten new package requests a day, much less write out lengthy "valid, concrete reasons" in an additional email when we decide to deny one of yours. I suggest you think on that.
Campbell
Thank you for your honest answer. But I don't think your this tone against me is warranted, I feel it to be even condescending a bit. And I take some issue with you labeling me belligerent, as I don't think it holds merit. Packages on AUR are only useful until they offer something unique. When an Arch repo package starts to offer the same, then no matter how much sentimental value an AUR package carries, it becomes obsolete. But stating it as such is not meant at all as a personal devaluation of the maintainer. Please kindly don't paint me as some kind of a hostile force, because I am not that at all. And the reason I stated my assertions about this package was exactly to invoke participation of others in this. They can refute me, they can freely express opposing views to mine. But by labeling me pushy just because of me taking initiative, that is an ad hominem attack against me actually. Please think about this dynamic as well, and please please keep me in somewhat more in good faith, as I also always try to do so with others. Thank you very much for your consideration. And again, I appreciate your selfless volunteering efforts that you make for this community. Cheers, Marcell / MarsSeed P.s when I started submitting requests relating to conky packages on AUR, there was 10-12 in total of them. No one else but me took the time to try to make sense of them and try to make some effort in separating the unique and viable and needed ones from the ones that are superfluous. I think that my honest efforts that I have put into the benefit of this community should earn me some credit as well. Just my 2c.
participants (4)
-
arch＠serebit.com
-
Marcell Meszaros
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
Spyros Stathopoulos