[PRQ#60974] Deletion Request for wechat-uos-bwrap
7Ji [1] filed a deletion request for wechat-uos-bwrap [2]: The upstream name is Wechat (Universal), and it's released onto both the UOS app store and Kylin OS app store with such name. As its official usage is not limited to UOS it shall not bear uos in its name. As it also uses a mixed tech stack and -[GUI framework] suffix is conventionally used for GUI split package (e.g. transmission-qt is the GUI part of tranmission PKGBUILD) it shall also not bear qt in its name. There're already a lot of packging using wechat-universal as the name base, examples on AUR include -universal-privileged and -universal (without suffix) by lihe07 and -appimage by yifwon; examles outside AUR include -universal-flatpak ( https://github.com/web1n/wechat- universal-flatpak ) by web1n. For a complete history about official WeChat builds and why wechat- universal was chosen, please check the previous reply I made to the related aur-general thread: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- general@lists.archlinux.org/message/CFBKZH23X2ZP4VWEXR5HU4FL3ADAIQNL/ . About why deletion instead of merge: as the maintainer of -universal- bwrap and the co-maintainer of -beta-bwrap, I don't want unrelated comments in the history of -universal, neither its votes. While -beta- bwrap was created by leaeasy initially as a fork of -uos-bwrap, the packaging went a different way after I joined to help improving it and it became its own thing, their history is completely different as they had completely different user bases from day 1, and -universal-bwrap, created as a workaround for the AUR limitation that PKGBUILD could not be renamed (PRQ#57762 to merge -beta-bwrap to -universal-bwrap was filed as soon as I pushed the PKGBUILD), would want no history from -uos-bwrap. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/7Ji/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/
Hi, We already discussed the duplication in aur-general and Qt is its main GUI toolkit, please keep discussing there to avoid fragmentation issues. I suppose you know the AUR submission guidelines: "If it is currently maintained, changes can be submitted in a comment for the maintainer's attention" and "Do not create duplicate packages". While other WeChat QT packages exist, those maintainers' mistake is not your excuse of violating the submission rule. Again, I already explained why wechat-universal-bwrap is duplicated package in the mailing list, and you didn't give a response. You, and your package, duplicated wechat-uos-bwrap, and now want to wipe the slate clean? I question the rationale behind this and am genuinely upset about your actions: denying the facts and confusing others. As AUR packagers, we shall maintain a clean and friendly packaging environment, a space where guidelines are not dismissed. This incident is happening way to long and needs an end. -- Sincerely, Kimiblock
Request #60974 has been Rejected by Muflone [1]: unfortunately there seems not to be a clear consensus what to do with all the wechat packages as all the parts have their points. More than 5 months have passed and no decisions were took by anyone. Closing as unresolved [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Muflone/
participants (2)
-
Kimiblock Moe
-
notify@aur.archlinux.org