[PRQ#48780] Deletion Request for mediathekview-xdg
MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for mediathekview-xdg [2]: Duplicate of extra/mediathekview, with a minimally modified launcher script. XDG specification support is a fundamental goal of Arch Linux. If a repo package could be enhanced to better respect that spec, one should file an upstream issue and/or an Arch Linux bug with a suggested patch, instead of recreating Arch repo builds on AUR. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mediathekview-xdg/
Request #48780 has been Rejected by serebit [1]: Personal disagreement with a particular patch is not an acceptable reason to file a deletion request. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/serebit/
On 27 February 2024 03:48:20 GMT+01:00, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Request #48780 has been Rejected by serebit [1]:
Personal disagreement with a particular patch is not an acceptable reason to file a deletion request.
There was nothing personal in my submission reason. What about AUR's rules of submission? [a]
The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the official package database for the package. If any version of it exists, do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking a feature, then please file a bug report.
Would you please address my argument about this? And also, the other one about XDG base directory specification adherence, which is a stated goal and guideline of Arch Linux? Which means, that lack of adequate XDG conformance is a bug, which should be addressed by submitting an issue, as per the submission rules. Am I getting something wrong here? [a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...
Sure, if you'd read one single bullet point after the one you cited:
Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference.
Check and check. If you're going to cite the rules, make sure you've read them thoroughly. The package stays until such time as the upstream software incorporates the patch. Campbell -------- Original Message -------- On 2/26/24 10:36 PM, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros@runbox.eu> wrote:
On 27 February 2024 03:48:20 GMT+01:00, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Request #48780 has been Rejected by serebit [1]:
Personal disagreement with a particular patch is not an acceptable reason to file a deletion request.
There was nothing personal in my submission reason.
What about AUR's rules of submission? [a]
The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the official package database for the package. If any version of it exists, do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking a feature, then please file a bug report.
Would you please address my argument about this?
And also, the other one about XDG base directory specification adherence, which is a stated goal and guideline of Arch Linux? Which means, that lack of adequate XDG conformance is a bug, which should be addressed by submitting an issue, as per the submission rules. Am I getting something wrong here?
[a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submissi...
Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference.
Check and check. If you're going to cite the rules, make sure you've read them thoroughly. The package stays until such time as the upstream software incorporates the patch.
I can see your point and accept it. Thank you very much for taking the time to address my nagging. :) And for all your valuable work on Arch Linux and the AUR. Cheers Marcell / MarsSeed
Btw submitting this request was not just a "Marcell" whim, there's ample precedent. See @Muflone's deletion request against a user-submitted firefox-xdg: [PRQ#48496] (7 Oct '23) https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/list/aur-requests@lists.archlinux.org...
participants (3)
-
arch＠serebit.com
-
Marcell Meszaros
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org