[PRQ#52809] Deletion Request for hqplayer
blackhole [1] filed a deletion request for hqplayer [2]: This package is no more available upstream, but is substituted by hqplayer4 and hqplayer5. It can be deleted [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/blackhole/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/hqplayer/
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]: [Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.
Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized There are at the moment names and versions are: hqplayer-embedded 5.3.2 hqplayer-client 5.3.2 hqplayer5 5.3.2 hqplayer4 4.22.1 hqplayer-pro 4.22.2 hqplayer-network-audio-daemon 4.6.0 hqplayer-embedded-sse 5.3.2 Arch PAckagers opinion? Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at v4.x
On 1/7/24 18:20, Fabio Loli wrote:
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.
Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions
Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized
There are at the moment names and versions are:
hqplayer-embedded 5.3.2 hqplayer-client 5.3.2 hqplayer5 5.3.2 hqplayer4 4.22.1 hqplayer-pro 4.22.2 hqplayer-network-audio-daemon 4.6.0 hqplayer-embedded-sse 5.3.2
Arch PAckagers opinion?
Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at v4.x
Hi, I accepted the request as the PKGBUILD was stuck to v3 and did not seem to draw a lot of attention (no comment/few old votes). However, I agree that naming of the PKGBUILDs should be harmonized with "hqplayer" pointing to the latest version. FWIW, all "hqplayer" related packages seems to all be maintained by the same account. I can "resurrect" the "hqplayer" package in favor of a merge request from "hqplayer5" to "hqplayer" instead. How does that sound? -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
On 1/7/24 18:20, Fabio Loli wrote:
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.
Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions
Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized
There are at the moment names and versions are:
hqplayer-embedded 5.3.2 hqplayer-client 5.3.2 hqplayer5 5.3.2 hqplayer4 4.22.1 hqplayer-pro 4.22.2 hqplayer-network-audio-daemon 4.6.0 hqplayer-embedded-sse 5.3.2
Arch PAckagers opinion?
Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at v4.x
Hi,
I accepted the request as the PKGBUILD was stuck to v3 and did not seem to draw a lot of attention (no comment/few old votes).
However, I agree that naming of the PKGBUILDs should be harmonized with "hqplayer" pointing to the latest version.
FWIW, all "hqplayer" related packages seems to all be maintained by the same account.
I can "resurrect" the "hqplayer" package in favor of a merge request from "hqplayer5" to "hqplayer" instead. How does that sound?
Sounds good to me
On 7 January 2024 18:56:57 GMT+01:00, Robin Candau <antiz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 1/7/24 18:20, Fabio Loli wrote:
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.
Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions
Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized
There are at the moment names and versions are:
hqplayer-embedded 5.3.2 hqplayer-client 5.3.2 hqplayer5 5.3.2 hqplayer4 4.22.1 hqplayer-pro 4.22.2 hqplayer-network-audio-daemon 4.6.0 hqplayer-embedded-sse 5.3.2
Arch PAckagers opinion?
Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at v4.x
Hi,
I accepted the request as the PKGBUILD was stuck to v3 and did not seem to draw a lot of attention (no comment/few old votes).
However, I agree that naming of the PKGBUILDs should be harmonized with "hqplayer" pointing to the latest version.
FWIW, all "hqplayer" related packages seems to all be maintained by the same account.
I can "resurrect" the "hqplayer" package in favor of a merge request from "hqplayer5" to "hqplayer" instead. How does that sound?
Hi all, At first I was of the same mind as @FabioLolix. However, based on upstream's website, as well as AUR maintainer's clarification comment, I came to the conclusion that it is not harmful to keep the hqplayer4 and hqplayer5 packages as they are. Upstream also refers to them as such, and they require a separately purchased license. Some people only have a license for hqplayer4. But the latter is still maintained by upstream, so it's not obsolete. When it comes to upstream's other applications, they don't have separate major versions maintained and offered in parallel, so their naming on AUR is straightforward. With respect to hqplayer4 and hqplayer5, I think this pattern reflects upstream's product naming the most clearly. AUR/hqplayer's last user comment was from 2017. AUR/hqplayer5 has several comments from 2023. So it seems users are okay with this naming scheme, and are able to find the package they want. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Marcell (MarsSeed)
On 1/7/24 19:30, Marcell Meszaros wrote:
On 7 January 2024 18:56:57 GMT+01:00, Robin Candau <antiz@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 1/7/24 18:20, Fabio Loli wrote:
Request #52809 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted deletion for hqplayer.
Why deleting hqplayer? Typically we update the main pkgbuild to the new version and create other pkgbuilds for legacy versions
Also IMO naming of hqplayer pkgbuilds could be harmonized
There are at the moment names and versions are:
hqplayer-embedded 5.3.2 hqplayer-client 5.3.2 hqplayer5 5.3.2 hqplayer4 4.22.1 hqplayer-pro 4.22.2 hqplayer-network-audio-daemon 4.6.0 hqplayer-embedded-sse 5.3.2
Arch PAckagers opinion?
Note however that there isn't hqplayer-pro v5.x or embedded/client at v4.x
Hi,
I accepted the request as the PKGBUILD was stuck to v3 and did not seem to draw a lot of attention (no comment/few old votes).
However, I agree that naming of the PKGBUILDs should be harmonized with "hqplayer" pointing to the latest version.
FWIW, all "hqplayer" related packages seems to all be maintained by the same account.
I can "resurrect" the "hqplayer" package in favor of a merge request from "hqplayer5" to "hqplayer" instead. How does that sound?
Hi all,
At first I was of the same mind as @FabioLolix.
However, based on upstream's website, as well as AUR maintainer's clarification comment, I came to the conclusion that it is not harmful to keep the hqplayer4 and hqplayer5 packages as they are. Upstream also refers to them as such, and they require a separately purchased license. Some people only have a license for hqplayer4. But the latter is still maintained by upstream, so it's not obsolete.
When it comes to upstream's other applications, they don't have separate major versions maintained and offered in parallel, so their naming on AUR is straightforward. With respect to hqplayer4 and hqplayer5, I think this pattern reflects upstream's product naming the most clearly.
AUR/hqplayer's last user comment was from 2017. AUR/hqplayer5 has several comments from 2023.
So it seems users are okay with this naming scheme, and are able to find the package they want.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers, Marcell (MarsSeed)
Hi, Thanks for your input! After a second thought and regarding how upstream indeed refers/manages their different available version as such (including in sources/artifacts), I actually agree that the hqplayer4 and hqplayer5 packages are actually fine as is. -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
participants (4)
-
Fabio Loli
-
Marcell Meszaros
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
Robin Candau