[aur-requests] [PRQ#13166] Deletion Request for emma
aaronfischer [1] filed a deletion request for emma [2]: This package is abandoned for a long time now. The original author and website for the project is down for some time. There is in fact a Github repository (https://github.com/clayadavis/emma), but the last code change was 6 years ago and nobody is maintaining the code. This project is dead. I am the maintainer of that package and I could simply disown it, but I think this package should be deleted. There is no official releases any more, just the code dumped on Github. If somebody cares about the future of that project, the AUR package also need a completely refactoring and a new name (emma-git instead of emma). For that, deleting the package is the proper way. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/aaronfischer/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/emma/
On 11/5/18 4:56 PM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
aaronfischer [1] filed a deletion request for emma [2]:
This package is abandoned for a long time now. The original author and website for the project is down for some time. There is in fact a Github repository (https://github.com/clayadavis/emma), but the last code change was 6 years ago and nobody is maintaining the code. This project is dead.
I am the maintainer of that package and I could simply disown it, but I think this package should be deleted. There is no official releases any more, just the code dumped on Github. If somebody cares about the future of that project, the AUR package also need a completely refactoring and a new name (emma-git instead of emma).
For that, deleting the package is the proper way.
Although the homepage is down, the source code archive is still available. And the github repo appears to be someone's totally unaffiliated mirror, so it does not need to be taken as the gospel home. Dead code is not always dead -- does it work okay? Do people use it? I see one vote from 2018-05-23. With this in mind, do you desire to reconsider this deletion request? -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:10:56 -0500 Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/5/18 4:56 PM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
aaronfischer [1] filed a deletion request for emma [2]:
[...] For that, deleting the package is the proper way.
Although the homepage is down, the source code archive is still available. And the github repo appears to be someone's totally unaffiliated mirror, so it does not need to be taken as the gospel home.
Dead code is not always dead -- does it work okay? Do people use it? I see one vote from 2018-05-23.
With this in mind, do you desire to reconsider this deletion request?
The package can't be simply reused to use the GitHub source. There is no version information available and no tagged releases. So the package should renamed to "emma-git". The project itself has no relevance any more and there is nobody actively maintaining it. I thought it would be the best to delete the "emma" package and if there is any demand, create a "emma-git" package with the new source. If this is not an option, I can change the source to GitHub and adjust the PKGBUILD so that the project builds again. But the project should in any case renamed to emma-git, so I can remove the version number. Aaron
On 11/6/18 4:55 PM, Aaron Fischer wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:10:56 -0500 Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/5/18 4:56 PM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
aaronfischer [1] filed a deletion request for emma [2]:
[...] For that, deleting the package is the proper way.
Although the homepage is down, the source code archive is still available. And the github repo appears to be someone's totally unaffiliated mirror, so it does not need to be taken as the gospel home.
Dead code is not always dead -- does it work okay? Do people use it? I see one vote from 2018-05-23.
With this in mind, do you desire to reconsider this deletion request?
The project itself has no relevance any more and there is nobody actively maintaining it. I thought it would be the best to delete the "emma" package and if there is any demand, create a "emma-git" package with the new source. If this is not an option, I can change the source to GitHub and adjust the PKGBUILD so that the project builds again. But the project should in any case renamed to emma-git, so I can remove the version number.
Well, I have no idea how much demand there is for it, that's why I asked you. :p But as I said, I can confirm it currently builds successfully, since the source is still available even though the project homepage is not. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:12:54 -0500 Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
Well, I have no idea how much demand there is for it, that's why I asked you. :p
But as I said, I can confirm it currently builds successfully, since the source is still available even though the project homepage is not.
Ok, then ignore my request :) We can leave the package as it is until the source disappears. Aaron
Request #13166 has been accepted by Alad [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Alad/
participants (3)
-
Aaron Fischer
-
Eli Schwartz
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org