Hi Marcell, In the past days I was made comaintainer of the package and we found a quick but good solution for the updates woes. I am unsure whether the owner of the normal "ferdium" package would agree or not, but I can try to get in touch with him/her. Bests, Giovanni On 2023-11-21 17:13, Marcell Meszaros wrote:

I think actually it would be best to merge this into AUR/ferdium, and suggest enhancements there to stop the latter from building its own Electron runtime and instead use one from Arch repo.

Because functionality-wise, both packages are the same. Doesn't seem particularly useful to keep them both in parallel.

Also, the prevalent practice on AUR, to bundle an Electron runtime in an <applicationname> package, and then create a different <applicationname>-electron package that instead of having Electon, is without it, is very wrong in my opinion, let alone misleading. (And in worst case, the naming pattern should be applied the other way around.)

ArchWiki's Electron package guidelines does not explicitly address this specific question, but it suggests ways with which it may be possible in many cases to remove the bundled Electron. Which to me is an implication that it is considered the better way of packaging these applications. Also that makes more sense from the perspective of resource consciousness, as well with respect to matters of security. (A web browser engine is a heavy-foorprint, extremely complex code, and is the single piece of software that is the most exposed to remote threats on a typical user computer.)

On 21 November 2023 16:23:39 GMT+01:00, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:

...

ItachiSan [1] filed an orphan request for ferdium-electron [2]:

The owner didn't update the package for more than 6 weeks. Orphaning the package would allow other AUR maintainers to update it.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ItachiSan/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ferdium-electron/

-- Giovanni Santini