[aur-requests] [PRQ#10039] Deletion Request for visual-studio-code
Earnest [1] filed a deletion request for visual-studio-code [2]: Since the required request type doesn't exist, I'd like to suggest this package *needs* to be named with a -bin suffix as it does not build the actual package. This is what https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/visual-studio-code-oss seems to do, but it should not need to call itself "-oss". So if I may request, this package be renamed to visual-studio-code- bin. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Earnest/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/visual-studio-code/
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 19:27, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
Earnest [1] filed a deletion request for visual-studio-code [2]:
Since the required request type doesn't exist, I'd like to suggest this package *needs* to be named with a -bin suffix as it does not build the actual package.
This is what https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/visual-studio-code-oss seems to do, but it should not need to call itself "-oss".
So if I may request, this package be renamed to visual-studio-code- bin.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Earnest/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/visual-studio-code/
I wish this was opened as a comment first, instead of a deletion request. As I've mentioned in the pinned comment, this package doesn't have a -bin suffix for historical reasons. Specifically, when Visual Studio Code was released it was not an open source project and there was no indication it ever would be. By the time Microsoft decided to release it with the MIT license, the package was already widely used. Currently, it's one of the 3 most popular packages on AUR [1]. The idea at the time was to avoid breaking updates for so many people by renaming. That reasoning is even more valid today. Nevertheless, I've pushed a new package with the -bin suffix [2]. However, I'd like to urge everyone to reject this rename request. Assuming the -oss package renames itself to remove the suffix, it will cause tremendous confusion among users of the binary package, especially since the "new" package would have reduced functionality (no extension gallery) compared to the current binary package. As far as I can see, there is no way to use conflicts/replaces in the PKGBUILD to avoid the above situation. So please, let's not do this. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=&outdated=&SB=p&SO=d&PP=50&do_Search=Go [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/visual-studio-code-bin
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 20:25, Duru Can Celasun wrote:
I wish this was opened as a comment first, instead of a deletion request.
As I've mentioned in the pinned comment, this package doesn't have a -bin suffix for historical reasons. Specifically, when Visual Studio Code was released it was not an open source project and there was no indication it ever would be.
By the time Microsoft decided to release it with the MIT license, the package was already widely used. Currently, it's one of the 3 most popular packages on AUR [1]. The idea at the time was to avoid breaking updates for so many people by renaming. That reasoning is even more valid today.
Nevertheless, I've pushed a new package with the -bin suffix [2]. However, I'd like to urge everyone to reject this rename request. Assuming the -oss package renames itself to remove the suffix, it will cause tremendous confusion among users of the binary package, especially since the "new" package would have reduced functionality (no extension gallery) compared to the current binary package.
As far as I can see, there is no way to use conflicts/replaces in the PKGBUILD to avoid the above situation. So please, let's not do this.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=&outdated=&SB=p&SO=d&PP=50&do_Search=Go
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/visual-studio-code-bin
One more thing I forgot to mention. The open source package [1] is not allowed to call itself "Visual Studio Code". The Visual Studio branding is only allowed to be used with the official binary version. The open source product is simply called "Code - OSS" [2]. So, if anything, visual-studio-code-oss [1] should be renamed to "code-oss" or something similar. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/visual-studio-code-oss [2] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/product.json
Duru Can Celasun <can@dcc.im> hat am 18. Dezember 2017 um 20:25 geschrieben:
Nevertheless, I've pushed a new package with the -bin suffix [2]. However, I'd like to urge everyone to reject this rename request. Assuming the -oss package renames itself to remove the suffix, it will cause tremendous confusion among users of the binary package, especially since the "new" package would have reduced functionality (no extension gallery) compared to the current binary package.
As far as I can see, there is no way to use conflicts/replaces in the PKGBUILD to avoid the above situation. So please, let's not do this. As I mentioned in the comments, this is not sufficient reason to go against AUR package guidelines. In fact, the popularity is even more reason for a package to respect AUR guidelines - as these are commonly used as reference for other packages.
Thanks for submitting the -bin package. I will merge the visual-studio-code package there shortly. Whether the visual-studio-code-oss package should be moved back to visual-studio-code is another topic for discussion. Alad
I wish this was opened as a comment first, instead of a deletion request.
I'm not sure why or how a comment would help. There was already a pinned message stating that it wasn't called -bin for "historical reasons".
As I've mentioned in the pinned comment, this package doesn't have a -bin suffix for historical reasons.
It doesn't really matter what the reasons were, a -bin package is a -bin package regardless of whether or not upstream decides to release the source or not. In fact, calling it -bin correctly initially would have prevented all of the subsequent issues you delcare.
Nevertheless, I've pushed a new package with the -bin suffix [2].
Good job. Let's hope the open source package will adopt the appropriate name instead of having to hack around a packager who claimed it instead of properly using a -bin suffix to denote the package type in the first place.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 21:23, Earnestly via aur-requests wrote:
Let's hope the open source package will adopt the appropriate name instead of having to hack around a packager who claimed it instead of properly using a -bin suffix to denote the package type in the first place.
As I've said here [1], here [2] and here [3] (and Microsoft said here [4]) the open source package is not allowed to use the name Visual Studio in any way. Therefore it needs to be renamed to "code", "microsoft-code" or something similar. So the open source package is named inappropriately, regardless of how I named the original package. Finally, when a package is binary only (i.e there is no indication an open source version does or will exist), not using a -bin suffix is perfectly acceptable. See steam [5] in the offical repositories. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021155.html [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021158.html [3] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021159.html [4] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-161792005 [5] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/steam/
Duru Can Celasun <can@dcc.im> hat am 18. Dezember 2017 um 21:33 geschrieben:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 21:23, Earnestly via aur-requests wrote:
Let's hope the open source package will adopt the appropriate name instead of having to hack around a packager who claimed it instead of properly using a -bin suffix to denote the package type in the first place.
As I've said here [1], here [2] and here [3] (and Microsoft said here [4]) the open source package is not allowed to use the name Visual Studio in any way. Therefore it needs to be renamed to "code", "microsoft-code" or something similar. So the open source package is named inappropriately, regardless of how I named the original package.
That comment in [4] by Microsoft is as opaque as it gets. Where do they explicitely disallow the use of "Visual Studio Code" for "non-branded" builds? And if they do, why is their README still using "Visual Studio Code - Open Source"? There's a pull request from 6 months ago to clarify this [6], but it was not addressed.
Finally, when a package is binary only (i.e there is no indication an open source version does or will exist), not using a -bin suffix is perfectly acceptable. See steam [5] in the offical repositories.
_Every_ package in the official repositories is binary by definition, so you can't apply that logic to the AUR.
[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021155.html [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021158.html [3] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-December/021159.html [4] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-161792005 [5] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/steam [6] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pull/28736
Request #10039 has been accepted automatically by the Arch User Repository package request system: The user Alad deleted the package.
participants (4)
-
Alad Wenter
-
Duru Can Celasun
-
Earnestly
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org