Eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for st-essential-patches [2]:
Contains sources bundled into the repo, and appears to only be used by the original uploader.
(This name is rather misleading.)
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/st-essential-patches/
I initially installed this package from the AUR, then noticed it had been removed, then uploaded a replacement (under the same name). I found it useful because it contains the specific version of st that's compatible with with the included patches. I recommend it not be deleted so that it can serve as a good starting point for new st users (since most at users maintain their own packages).
On Jan 24, 2018 9:11 PM, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for st-essential-patches [2]:
Contains sources bundled into the repo, and appears to only be used by the original uploader.
(This name is rather misleading.)
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/st-essential-patches/
On 01/24/2018 09:54 PM, Adrian Sinclair wrote:
I initially installed this package from the AUR, then noticed it had been removed, then uploaded a replacement (under the same name).
That makes me curious why it was deleted...
I found it useful because it contains the specific version of st that's compatible with with the included patches.
In other words, it is unmaintained.
I recommend it not be deleted so that it can serve as a good starting point for new st users (since most at users maintain their own packages).
What, specifically, is "essential" about the patches? If most st users maintain their own package anyway, then what is the utility for new users? What is different about, say, the scrollback patch in this package, vs. the st-scrollback-git package? (st-scrollback-git is a nice descriptive pkgname that tells you what it does.)
Why does this package contain the source tarball, rather than downloading it from the st website? (If everything else is my personal opinions, then this at least is strictly against the AUR rules.)
Request #10393 has been accepted by Alad [1].
aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org