- Aur-requests - lists.archlinux.org

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13679] Deletion Request for python-pydbus
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Jan '19

01 Jan '19

maximbaz [1] filed a deletion request for python-pydbus [2]: moved to [community] [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/maximbaz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-pydbus/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13678] Orphan Request for nautilus-git
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 01 Jan '19

01 Jan '19

flipflop97 [1] filed a orphan request for nautilus-git [2]: The package needs maintainer action as the source has moved which makes the package unable to download source files. A comment from about a year ago has pointed this out and there seems to be no response nor action from the maintainer. Next to this: It also contains non-existing dependencies that should be fixed. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/flipflop97/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/nautilus-git/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13645] Orphan Request for onlyoffice-bin
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

IslamMu [1] filed a orphan request for onlyoffice-bin [2]: Preparing... Cloning onlyoffice-bin build files... Checking onlyoffice-bin dependencies... Building onlyoffice-bin... ==> Making package: onlyoffice-bin 5.2.4-1 (Fri 28 Dec 2018 12:07:32 PM EET) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrieving sources... -> Found onlyoffice-desktopeditors-5.2.4_amd64.deb ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... onlyoffice-desktopeditors-5.2.4_amd64.deb ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/IslamMu/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onlyoffice-bin/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13646] Orphan Request for onlyoffice-bin
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

IslamMu [1] filed a orphan request for onlyoffice-bin [2]: Preparing... Cloning onlyoffice-bin build files... Checking onlyoffice-bin dependencies... Building onlyoffice-bin... ==> Making package: onlyoffice-bin 5.2.4-1 (Fri 28 Dec 2018 12:07:32 PM EET) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrieving sources... -> Found onlyoffice-desktopeditors-5.2.4_amd64.deb ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... onlyoffice-desktopeditors-5.2.4_amd64.deb ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/IslamMu/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/onlyoffice-bin/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13651] Orphan Request for planck
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

AustinC [1] filed a orphan request for planck [2]: Current maintainer has indicated this package is orphaned. I plan to adopt. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/AustinC/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/planck/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13670] Deletion Request for jdatestamp
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

polyzen [1] filed a deletion request for jdatestamp [2]: Requires a package up for deletion, and both are vaporware. https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- requests/2018-December/028870.html [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/polyzen/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/jdatestamp/

2 2

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13661] Deletion Request for libjpeg-droppatch
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

alex.shpilkin [1] filed a deletion request for libjpeg-droppatch [2]: Package is unbuildable (since 2016, according to comments): droppatch.v8.tar.gz is unavailable from the provided URL. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/alex.shpilkin/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/libjpeg-droppatch/

2 2

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#13165] Deletion Request for mailcap-mime-types Accepted
by Eli Schwartz 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

On 12/31/18 7:48 AM, Samuel Williams wrote: > Hi Eli, > > I’m sorry I seem to have hit a nerve. > > The issue has been discussed here: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56532 > > The package is currently useful to me, I use it on a number of > systems. So, I felt it was appropriate to share it with others who > might find it useful too if they want mailcap without nginx mime > files cluttering their system. Thank you for pointing out that context, because I actually do remember that bug report, now, but I did not remember it either when reading the initial deletion request or when you replied asking for the package to be reinstated. In the context of that bug report, I can actually understand the motivation for this package, and it is a lot more justifiable than the obvious explanation. I'm still not sure why you never said so in the first place, mind you ;) and I'm not sure what the right answer to this should be, but this is worlds better than the previous state of affairs where I was positive the answer was "delete the package". However, the current state of affairs is still needlessly confusing: the pkgname does not distinguish what is different between this and the mailcap package, and I would suggest that your intent is more along the lines of a package like "mime-types-minimal", and/or leaving a comment on the package details explaining what the utility of this is above and beyond the mailcap package. >> I wasn’t saying you should tell people how to ignore the deletion >> request, I was simply saying that it was not clear I should “Reply >> All” in order to contest the deletion. On the deletion request, I >> think this should be clear, and it should also be clear what the >> process is to actually contest the deletion request. Simply >> replying to the private email is obvously not enough, and from what >> you said, some basic information should be presented, like why the >> package is useful, why it is broken, how/when it will be fixed, >> etc. This... sounds a lot less weird than what I initially assumed you meant, but then, "So, you don’t need to do anything. However, I would suggest you add a small note in the deletion request what you should do." did very much sound like you were still talking about getting packages restored... Anyway, it's not necessary to send private or public email, you can simply leave a comment on the package details instead. This method does not even require subscribing to the mailing list. I feel like it should be common sense that in order to contest a deletion request, you must do so in a manner where anyone reading the deletion request can see. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

1 0

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13671] Merge Request for birtty
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

polyzen [1] filed a request to merge birtty [2] into birtty-git [3]: This is actually a -git package, and birtty-git makes use of current VCS packaging standards [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/polyzen/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/birtty/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/birtty-git/

1 1

[aur-requests] [PRQ#13672] Deletion Request for toastify
by notify＠aur.archlinux.org 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

polyzen [1] filed a deletion request for toastify [2]: Package has been added to the repos. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/polyzen/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/toastify/

1 1