[PRQ#57379] Merge Request for wechat-beta-bwrap
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/
the wechat-beta-bwrap and wechat-uos have nothing to do with each other.
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/
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
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.
And this provides `wechat-beta`, a leaked build that identified itself as a different program from the mainline `wechat` that `wechat-uos`
`wechat-beta` is a dedicated, non-mainline build that's created for
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. provides. It is indeed a leaked version in the first place, but very quickly UOS published it in their App Store. 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/me... [b]: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/me... -- Sincerely, Kimiblock
participants (4)
-
Guoxin Pu
-
Kimiblock Moe
-
longyu li
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org