[PRQ#59772] Deletion Request for widevine
MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for widevine [2]: Re-filing a deletion request due to not receiving any response [a] as to the rationale to keep this duplicate of the properly packaged AUR/chromium-widevine. [b] The AUR/widevine package was created with the sole purpose of offering ARM support, and x86_64 was only added to mask its intent. Also I believe it is not okay to create duplicates on AUR when there is already a maintained package which works with Arch Linux. AUR/widevine's maintainer should collaborate with that of AUR/chromium-widevine and suggest enhancements there, if there are relevant ones. In addition, AUR/widevine has other problems. As its used release deliverables for different platforms diverge in their version: - AUR/widevine pkgver: 4.10.2252.0 - x86_64: upstream - 4.10.2710.0 (released 2024-02-12) - aarch64/armhf: RaspberryPi.org/Debian - 4.10.2252.0 (released 2023-10-05) - (AUR/chromium-widevine pkgver: 4.10.2710.0, released 2024-02-12) As the RPI distro does not carry the latest version, it seems not to be viable to carry binaries for different architectures in the same PKGBUILD. Which leads me to conclude that a PKGBUILD for the RPI releases should be submitted to the ArchLinuxARM.org repositories only. That would actually benefit users more, while not cluttering the AUR. [a]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- requests@lists.archlinux.org/thread/IAHLWRGRNHHUZRU2LRMX5UTZUNGJBAUO/#5CT5XAQZNIHQYPSRZ6CMDTY67XE3QOU2 [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-widevine [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/widevine/
Den 29.04.2024 kl. 20.09 skrev notify@aur.archlinux.org:
MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for widevine [2]:
Re-filing a deletion request due to not receiving any response [a] as to the rationale to keep this duplicate of the properly packaged AUR/chromium-widevine. [b]
The AUR/widevine package was created with the sole purpose of offering ARM support, and x86_64 was only added to mask its intent.
Also I believe it is not okay to create duplicates on AUR when there is already a maintained package which works with Arch Linux. AUR/widevine's maintainer should collaborate with that of AUR/chromium-widevine and suggest enhancements there, if there are relevant ones.
In addition, AUR/widevine has other problems. As its used release deliverables for different platforms diverge in their version:
- AUR/widevine pkgver: 4.10.2252.0 - x86_64: upstream - 4.10.2710.0 (released 2024-02-12) - aarch64/armhf: RaspberryPi.org/Debian - 4.10.2252.0 (released 2023-10-05) - (AUR/chromium-widevine pkgver: 4.10.2710.0, released 2024-02-12)
As the RPI distro does not carry the latest version, it seems not to be viable to carry binaries for different architectures in the same PKGBUILD.
Which leads me to conclude that a PKGBUILD for the RPI releases should be submitted to the ArchLinuxARM.org repositories only. The problem with that is that widevine is not open source and not distributable, so the package is not allowed to be in any repository, thus an AUR package is required.
That would actually benefit users more, while not cluttering the AUR.
[a]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- requests@lists.archlinux.org/thread/IAHLWRGRNHHUZRU2LRMX5UTZUNGJBAUO/#5CT5XAQZNIHQYPSRZ6CMDTY67XE3QOU2 [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-widevine
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/widevine/ -- Med venlig hilsen Dan Johansen
On 29 April 2024 20:16:54 GMT+02:00, Dan Johansen <danjohansen@strits.dk> wrote:
Den 29.04.2024 kl. 20.09 skrev notify@aur.archlinux.org:
MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for widevine [2]:
Re-filing a deletion request due to not receiving any response [a] as to the rationale to keep this duplicate of the properly packaged AUR/chromium-widevine. [b]
The AUR/widevine package was created with the sole purpose of offering ARM support, and x86_64 was only added to mask its intent.
Also I believe it is not okay to create duplicates on AUR when there is already a maintained package which works with Arch Linux. AUR/widevine's maintainer should collaborate with that of AUR/chromium-widevine and suggest enhancements there, if there are relevant ones.
In addition, AUR/widevine has other problems. As its used release deliverables for different platforms diverge in their version:
- AUR/widevine pkgver: 4.10.2252.0 - x86_64: upstream - 4.10.2710.0 (released 2024-02-12) - aarch64/armhf: RaspberryPi.org/Debian - 4.10.2252.0 (released 2023-10-05) - (AUR/chromium-widevine pkgver: 4.10.2710.0, released 2024-02-12)
As the RPI distro does not carry the latest version, it seems not to be viable to carry binaries for different architectures in the same PKGBUILD.
Which leads me to conclude that a PKGBUILD for the RPI releases should be submitted to the ArchLinuxARM.org repositories only. The problem with that is that widevine is not open source and not distributable, so the package is not allowed to be in any repository, thus an AUR package is required.
That would actually benefit users more, while not cluttering the AUR.
[a]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-widevine
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/widevine/
Hm, in that case, I believe the best course of action would be yet to add the RaspberryPi release tarballs to AUR/chromium-widevine, and its pkgver could reflect the divergent versions in the following way (example): pkgver=4.10.2710.0_rpi4.10.2252.0 Can you maybe request collaboration with AUR/chromium-widevine's maintainer to make the necessary changes in that PKGBUILD? That would be the best in my opinion. Thank you for considering my proposal.
Il 29/04/24 20:09, notify@aur.archlinux.org ha scritto:
MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for widevine [2]:
Re-filing a deletion request due to not receiving any response [a] as to the rationale to keep this duplicate of the properly packaged AUR/chromium-widevine. [b]
Marcell, please stop this passive/aggressive attitude immediately. Consider this message as a first formal warning. I replied to your request yesterday at 6.48 PM, after that you replied again at 7.31 PM. 24 hours later you wrote a new request about not having received any response from me. Multiple requests won't solve anything, apart burdening the PMs to manage them and make them angry for your behavior. Also you don't communicate with the packages' maintainer using deletion requests: first contact them and explain your opinion, awaiting also their response. The widevine maintainer explained the package can offer more than chromium-widevine [1] Whether this is real or false is a matter to evaluate, not from your side only, you simply don't file a new request after 24 hours I rejected your request (which contained two false statements about the package status). Regards [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org/t... -- Fabio Castelli aka Muflone
participants (4)
-
Dan Johansen
-
Marcell Meszaros
-
Muflone
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org