[aur-requests] [PRQ#18272] Deletion Request for r-gdal
dviktor [1] filed a deletion request for r-gdal [2]: package name is invalid. the right one is r-rgdal [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dviktor/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/r-gdal/
On 2020-03-09 01:11, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
dviktor [1] filed a deletion request for r-gdal [2]:
package name is invalid. the right one is r-rgdal
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dviktor/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/r-gdal/
While I agree with the renames proposed in PRQ#18272 through PRQ#18276, it is considered good form to bring up such issues in the package comments first to give the current maintainers a chance to deal with the rename themselves. Given that you have already uploaded fresh packages under the new names today, I suggest adding the current maintainers of the old packages as co-maintainers of the new packages: at least some of them appear to be active, e.g. r-gdal was updated just today. Procedurally it would be better to have filed merge requests instead of deletion requests to merge the old into the new name: this preserves votes and comments and gives a clearer indication of what happened to the old package. Best regards, Jonas
oh, I got it. will be careful next time:) пн, 9 мар. 2020 г., 12:59 Jonas Witschel <diabonas@archlinux.org>:
On 2020-03-09 01:11, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
dviktor [1] filed a deletion request for r-gdal [2]:
package name is invalid. the right one is r-rgdal
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dviktor/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/r-gdal/
While I agree with the renames proposed in PRQ#18272 through PRQ#18276, it is considered good form to bring up such issues in the package comments first to give the current maintainers a chance to deal with the rename themselves.
Given that you have already uploaded fresh packages under the new names today, I suggest adding the current maintainers of the old packages as co-maintainers of the new packages: at least some of them appear to be active, e.g. r-gdal was updated just today.
Procedurally it would be better to have filed merge requests instead of deletion requests to merge the old into the new name: this preserves votes and comments and gives a clearer indication of what happened to the old package.
Best regards, Jonas
On 2020-03-09 11:12, viktor drobot wrote:
oh, I got it. will be careful next time:)
No worries, since you made the old maintainers co-maintainers of the new packages, I manually merged the packages. Cheers, Jonas
Request #18272 has been accepted by diabonas [1]: Merged r-gdal into r-rgdal, see https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- requests/2020-March/038366.html The maintainer of r-gdal has been made a co-maintainer of r-rgdal as well. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/diabonas/
participants (3)
-
Jonas Witschel
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
viktor drobot