[aur-requests] [PRQ#16805] Deletion Request for the-darkmod-tweaked
eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for the-darkmod-tweaked [2]: After discussion in the package comments for thedarkmod-bin, it was determined that the custom installer used in the former package "darkmod" violated the rules of submission on numerous levels. The package was reimplemented by a Trusted User, and for good measure cleaned up and renamed to something more closely matching upstream intentions, but for all this, the core issue with https://gitlab.com/es20490446e/the-darkmod-tweaked had nothing to do whether mv is better than cp, or whatever else this justification entails: ``` So I'm providing an alternative version for this package, called "the- darkmod-tweaked", with the following enhancements over the official bundle: Separated saved games and downloaded mission repository for each user. Missions cache auto-cleanup. Enhanced installation speed compared with the official installer. ``` No, this is not acceptable. Your new package is still obfuscation and violates the rules of submission. Your "tweaks" in comparison with thedarkmod-bin do not answer the question: "why was the previous package orphaned via moderator action". You may not re-upload a package which was deemed inadmissible to the AUR, and simply rename the pkgname in order to justify its existence. You are REQUIRED to either: - first defend your claim that the initial judgment "this is unfit for the AUR" was incorrect, or - fix the problems You have done neither. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/the-darkmod-tweaked/
Request #16805 has been accepted by escondida [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/escondida/
On 26/11/19 2:27, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for the-darkmod-tweaked [2]:
After discussion in the package comments for thedarkmod-bin, it was determined that the custom installer used in the former package "darkmod" violated the rules of submission on numerous levels.
The package was reimplemented by a Trusted User, and for good measure cleaned up and renamed to something more closely matching upstream intentions, but for all this, the core issue with https://gitlab.com/es20490446e/the-darkmod-tweaked had nothing to do whether mv is better than cp, or whatever else this justification entails:
``` So I'm providing an alternative version for this package, called "the- darkmod-tweaked", with the following enhancements over the official bundle:
Separated saved games and downloaded mission repository for each user. Missions cache auto-cleanup. Enhanced installation speed compared with the official installer. ```
No, this is not acceptable. Your new package is still obfuscation and violates the rules of submission.
Your "tweaks" in comparison with thedarkmod-bin do not answer the question: "why was the previous package orphaned via moderator action".
You may not re-upload a package which was deemed inadmissible to the AUR, and simply rename the pkgname in order to justify its existence. You are REQUIRED to either: - first defend your claim that the initial judgment "this is unfit for the AUR" was incorrect, or - fix the problems
You have done neither.
[1]https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eschwartz/ [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/the-darkmod-tweaked/
Even when I thought that could piss you off, I genuinely believed that would fall within the rules. Now you suspended my account, and destroyed all my work on Arch. But that was a less risky decision than keeping you around. Your purpose was never to enforce good practices but to boycott. What you call quality standards won't allow me to reach my goals. You don't care about the contents of the book, you only care about how well it's written.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 3:28 PM Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
…
I've had quite enough of these emails. Eli's actions are nearly unanimously supported by the other TUs. You've consistently behaved inappropriately in mailing lists, on the forums and you've several times tried shipping dangerous code to users. You've tested everyone's patience and you're now out of time. I'm honestly surprised you're not banned from the ML (yet?). Move on. J. Leclanche
participants (3)
-
Alberto Salvia Novella
-
Jerome Leclanche
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org