Search results for "wechat" - Aur-requests

[PRQ#68212] Deletion Request for wechat

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

Keep-Silence [1] filed a deletion request for wechat [2]: Dear aur repository maintainers/administrators Please do not delete wechat-bin Keep wechat and wechat-bin and wait for time to prove which version is the most popular Please do not disappoint wechat-bin users and developers There is a reason why wechat-bin has been deleted and recreated so many times Please understand the whole incident instead of blindly agreeing to delete wechat-bin Because of aur's poor mechanism, wechat-bin has been repeatedly deleted and recreated [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Keep-Silence/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/

1 month

回复: [PRQ#67114] Merge Request for wechat-bin

by Deng Evine

I don't believe `wechat-bin` is a duplicate package. The `wechat` package depends on another package called `portable`, maintained by the same maintainer, to create a sandbox environment. Beyond that, the `wechat` package includes a significant number of unnecessary scripts and files added solely to support the sandbox setup. Therefore, I believe the package name `wechat` is misleading and should instead be called `wechat-portable`. Even though it prompts users at launch to choose whether to enable the sandbox, that doesn't change the fact that it essentially functions as `wechat-portable`. On the other hand, `wechat-bin` is a package that is almost entirely a repackaging of the official WeChat `.deb` package. If the current `wechat` package hadn’t occupied the name `wechat`, then `wechat-bin` would naturally take that name instead. Given the differences in their packaging approaches, I do not see them as duplicate packages. One particularly problematic aspect of the `wechat` maintainer’s actions is that he preemptively reserved the `wechat` package name back when Tencent had not yet released an official Linux version of WeChat. He created a placeholder package with no real content, effectively blocking others from packaging WeChat. Their intent seems clear: to prevent others from uploading WeChat packages and to position themselves to demand a merge whenever a package doesn't align with his personal preferences. This behavior might stem from frustration with previous merge requests (e.g., [PRQ#57379], [PRQ#57762], [PRQ#57991], [PRQ#65631]) where AUR moderators rejected his requests, citing the uniqueness and coexistence of each package. In response, the maintainer criticized AUR moderation on his personal blog, criticizing they as "not good" [AUR moderation is not good](https://blog.kimiblock.top/2024/08/23/aur-moderation/). Shortly after, he uploaded a placeholder package to claim the `wechat` name. Despite the maintainer's early occupancy of the `wechat` name and the significant traffic he draw as a result, most users continue to vote for `wechat-bin`. This is because `wechat-bin` users overwhelmingly prefer the clean, official experience without the unnecessary additions from the wechat package. They reject being forced to use extra something they don’t want. Finally, even if I were to agree to a merge, it’s highly likely that another user would simply re-upload a new `wechat-bin` package. This is evident from the feedback on comment of `wechat-bin`, as its users value freedom and choice. These are, after all, the hallmarks of true Linux users. ________________________________ 发件人: notify(a)aur.archlinux.org <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> 发送时间: 2024年12月6日 7:51 收件人: aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org <aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org> 抄送: li(a)imlihe.com <li(a)imlihe.com> 主题: [PRQ#67114] Merge Request for wechat-bin Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-bin [2] into wechat [3]: This package contains the exact same content from WeChat's official Linux desktop app. And aur/wechat (now extracted portable sandbox) has already added a question dialog for users to choose whether or not to enable the sandbox. So according the the AUR submission guidelines, this package (along with others providing the official WeChat app) should not be submitted in the first place. I'll set maintainer(s) of wechat-bin to be aur/wechat's co- maintainers, if they are willing to do so. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-bin/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/

1 month, 3 weeks

[PRQ#67114] Merge Request for wechat-bin

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-bin [2] into wechat [3]: This package contains the exact same content from WeChat's official Linux desktop app. And aur/wechat (now extracted portable sandbox) has already added a question dialog for users to choose whether or not to enable the sandbox. So according the the AUR submission guidelines, this package (along with others providing the official WeChat app) should not be submitted in the first place. I'll set maintainer(s) of wechat-bin to be aur/wechat's co- maintainers, if they are willing to do so. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-bin/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/

1 month, 4 weeks

Re: [PRQ#57379] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap

by Guoxin Pu

Hello, I'm 7Ji, the co-maintiner of `wechat-beta-bwrap`, I've improved the package in various ways since I've invited as the co-maintainer by the original maintainer lilongyu after the PRQ, and I'm writing in oppose to this merge request. > This package is basically wechat-uos-bwrap This is not right, different from `wechat-uos-bwrap`, which expects an existing `wechat-uos` to provide uos licensing files, `wechat-beta-bwrap` packs the license files by itself. Many feel it annoying to have both packages intalled when they only want to run one of them: the QT natively compiled one. And this provides `wechat-beta`, a leaked build that identified itself as a different program from the mainline `wechat` that `wechat-uos` provides. It was never released as main release from wechat.qq.com, nor weixin.qq.com, and it does not conflict with the official main build. This means `wechat-beta` shall be treated as a distinct package from the previous `wechat-uos` > with no sandboxing which means this proprietary app can obtain any > system data or user data This is not right, `wechat-beta-bwrap` came with sandboxing at day0, with its name marking this, although limited, and only protected the user home but not system data. It is not "no sandboxing", but "no proper sandboxing". I've since improved the package after being invited and added more strict sandboxing, while also made it possible to smoothly call up host applications with easier xdg-open integration. > The reason why wechat-uos-bwrap doesn't come with beta in name is the > fact that the app doesn't recognize itself as a beta `wechat-beta` is a dedicated, non-mainline build that's created for private testing of native QT stack, considered itself `wechat-beta`. It shall live in its own namespace. And `wechat-uos-bwrap` on another hand, should stick to the non-QT `wechat` build provided by `wechat-uos`, not `wechat-beta`. It is `-uos-bwrap` having a wrong name, not `-beta-bwrap` being a duplicate. Additionally, as of writing, `wechat-beta-bwrap` has 21 votes, and `wechat-uos-bwrap`has 11 votes, it is not right to merge from a highly voted one a lowly voted one. Yours, Guoxin "7Ji" Pu

10 months, 3 weeks

Fwd: [PRQ#68247] Deletion Request for wechat

by shinka

I am not reporting an issue but requesting to merge this package into a new one to avoid using a misleading name like "wechat".You can use "wechat-portable" or "wechat-vanilla" as alternative names. -------- 转发的消息 -------- 主题: [PRQ#68247] Deletion Request for wechat 日期: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 08:48:27 +0000 From: notify(a)aur.archlinux.org 回复地址: noreply(a)aur.archlinux.org 收件人: aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org shinka [1] filed a deletion request for wechat [2]: While doing a routine system upgrade today, I noticed that wechat is not updating properly. Since this package currently no longer includes the wechat software, but acts as a customization script for wechat, and its upstream is completely unrelated to wechat, it should not use wechat as its name, which is seriously misleading and bothersome to users. It should be renamed to some other package. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/shinka/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/

1 month

Re: [PRQ#57379] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap

by Kimiblock Moe

Hi all, Sorry for not being aware of this list updating. I'm writing to request PMs' merge approval, due to the fact that wechat-beta-bwrap is clearly a duplicate package of wechat-uos-bwrap as discussed in aur-general[a][b]. > This is not right, different from `wechat-uos-bwrap`, which expects an existing `wechat-uos` to provide uos licensing files, `wechat-beta-bwrap` packs the license files by itself. Well this is not true anymore. wechat-uos-bwrap, or wechat-uos-qt, the new package name is providing the license itself within the package. > And this provides `wechat-beta`, a leaked build that identified itself as a different program from the mainline `wechat` that `wechat-uos` provides. It is indeed a leaked version in the first place, but very quickly UOS published it in their App Store. > `wechat-beta` is a dedicated, non-mainline build that's created for private testing of native QT stack, considered itself `wechat-beta`. It shall live in its own namespace. As of today, wechat-beta-bwrap is not using a beta version of WeChat. > It is `-uos-bwrap` having a wrong name, not `-beta-bwrap` being a duplicate. Firstly, according to the AUR submission guidelines: Check the AUR if the package already exists. If it is currently maintained, changes can be submitted in a comment for the maintainer's attention. If it is unmaintained or the maintainer is unresponsive, the package can be adopted and updated as required. Do not create duplicate packages. Secondly, naming difference does not affect the definition of a duplicate package. -beta-bwrap still provides the same package as -uos-bwrap. wechat-uos-bwrap has already been renamed to wechat-uos-qt to clearly reflect its GUI toolkit. > Additionally, as of writing, `wechat-beta-bwrap` has 21 votes, and `wechat-uos-bwrap`has 11 votes, it is not right to merge from a highly voted one a lowly voted one. I DO NOT think a higher vote eliminates the fact that wechat-beta-bwrap is a duplicated package of wechat-uos-bwrap. In my opinion, it is a very disgusting way to hide the origin of wechat-beta-bwrap and literally tells anyone packaging on the AUR that stealing votes can be done. [a]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/m… [b]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/m… -- Sincerely, Kimiblock

10 months, 1 week

[PRQ#68247] Deletion Request for wechat

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

shinka [1] filed a deletion request for wechat [2]: While doing a routine system upgrade today, I noticed that wechat is not updating properly. Since this package currently no longer includes the wechat software, but acts as a customization script for wechat, and its upstream is completely unrelated to wechat, it should not use wechat as its name, which is seriously misleading and bothersome to users. It should be renamed to some other package. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/shinka/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat/

1 month

Re: [PRQ#57379] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap

by longyu li

the wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-uos have nothing to do with each other. <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> 于2024年3月7日周四 15:11写道： > Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge wechat-beta-bwrap [2] into > wechat-uos-bwrap [3]: > > This package is basically wechat-uos-bwrap, with no sandboxing which > means this proprietary app can obtain any system data or user data > > The reason why wechat-uos-bwrap doesn’t come with beta in name is the > fact that the app doesn’t recognize itself as a beta > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-beta-bwrap/ > [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/

10 months, 3 weeks

Re: [PRQ#57991] Merge Request for wechat-universal-bwrap

by Guoxin Pu

This Merge Request shall be rejected as com.tencent.wechat (WeChat (Universal)) and com.tencent.weixin (WeChat) are two distinct upstream packages. They save data in different internal formats, and are maintained separately upstream. wechat-uos-bwrap[a] packs the source of .wechat / -universal and refuses to correct itself to pack the same source as wechat-uos[b]: .wexin / non-universal. And there's also no reason for this PRQ if the maintainer of -uos-bwrap wants every one of these wechat packages merged into -uos: they shall wait for -uos's orphan request to be passed, then adopt it and merge everything into -uos. There's no particular reason for intermediate merges into -uos-bwrap. If there shall be merge happening, it would be the other way around: -uos into -universal, lower voted and less maintained into higher voted and more maintained. [a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-uos-bwrap/ [b]: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-universal-bwrap/ [c]: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/wechat-beta-bwrap/

10 months, 2 weeks

[PRQ#39384] Merge Request for electronic-wechat-uos-electron

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

Kimiblock [1] filed a request to merge electronic-wechat-uos-electron [2] into electronic-wechat-uos-bin [3]: The only difference is `electronic-wechat-uos-electron` uses a png icon from the package while `electronic-wechat-uos-bin` uses a SVG icon from WhiteSur [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Kimiblock/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/electronic-wechat-uos-electron/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/electronic-wechat-uos-bin/

2 years, 1 month

Aur-requests search results for query "wechat"