Search results for "Deletion request for pkgbase" - Aur-requests

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#7122] Deletion Request for ttf-mac-fonts

by John D Jones III

Since no further discussion has taken place regarding this PKGBUILD and the fact that I've updated it to properly use the updated features in makepkg. I propose that this request be closed and denied, as mentioned earlier in my email 19 days ago, that the fonts are part of the macbuntu project and thus does not constitute a 'pirated source'. On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:34 PM, John D Jones III <unixgeek1972(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (Send this from the correct email address…) > I fail to see how this downloads from a ‘pirated source’ since it comes > from the MacBuntu project. I am aware that the pkgbuild needs to be updated > to properly use the subversion feature in makepkg, I have not been able to > get to it due to having multiple spinal injuries and two surgeries in 2016. > Typically if a user comments on the pkg or emails me I make a point to > update the pkgbuild as necessary. I guess I’ll hold off on updating the > pkgbuild for proper svn support until this request is settled. However I am > against the deletion of this pkgbuild fully due to the legal download > source provided in the original pkgbuild. > > Thanks, > John D Jones III > UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover > unixgeek1972(a)gmail.com > jnbek1972(a)gmail.com > http://zoelife4u.org/ > Where Earth and Spirit Unite > > > On Dec 31, 2016, at 3:08 PM, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > > > jbarnett [1] filed a deletion request for ttf-mac-fonts [2]: > > > > Violates packaging standards (does not have "source"). Downloads > > software from a pirated source. See > > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=221336 > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/jbarnett/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ttf-mac-fonts/ > > -- Thanks, John D Jones III UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover unixgeek1972(a)gmail.com jnbek1972(a)gmail.com\ http://zoelife4u.org/

8 years, 6 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#1282] Deletion Request for lib32-rtmpdump-stable

by Νῖκος Θεοδώρου

I take the high-jacking allegation back. It was improper of me and I apologise. On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:17 -0500 Jake Daffer <jake.daffer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am ok with the deletion. But I want to be clear that this is not > from git and this is from the website that is the host of the > package. And let me also be clear that the claim of a high-jacking > attempt has no basis in its aligation. Also my claim as to why I am > felt that GordonGR's packgage is from git is because it is using a > specific commit. Which is understandably a saved state of a git > development, but this does mean that it is still from git. Next time > ask me about this because the PKGBUILD's are different. > > On 10/29/14 08:07, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > GordonGR [1] filed a deletion request for lib32-rtmpdump-stable [2]: > > > > This package is duplicate of aur/lib32-rtmpdump [a], maintained by > > me. Its creator claims (in the comments section of [a]), that his > > package is stable while mine is the developmental edition, which is > > not true; the package in [extra] [b] uses git, and therefore [a] > > mine uses git as well. The same practice is used for other > > packages, eg the old now gstreamer0.10 packages. There is simply no > > place for this package, I would go insofar as to say this is > > high-jacking attempt. Please delete. > > > > [a] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-rtmpdump/ > > [b] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/rtmpdump/ > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/GordonGR/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/lib32-rtmpdump-stable/ > > > -- Νῖκος Θεοδώρου «Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»

10 years, 9 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#1282] Deletion Request for lib32-rtmpdump-stable

by Νῖκος Θεοδώρου

I take the high-jacking allegation back. It was wrong of me and I apologise. On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:44:17 -0500 Jake Daffer <jake.daffer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am ok with the deletion. But I want to be clear that this is not > from git and this is from the website that is the host of the > package. And let me also be clear that the claim of a high-jacking > attempt has no basis in its aligation. Also my claim as to why I am > felt that GordonGR's packgage is from git is because it is using a > specific commit. Which is understandably a saved state of a git > development, but this does mean that it is still from git. Next time > ask me about this because the PKGBUILD's are different. > > On 10/29/14 08:07, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > GordonGR [1] filed a deletion request for lib32-rtmpdump-stable [2]: > > > > This package is duplicate of aur/lib32-rtmpdump [a], maintained by > > me. Its creator claims (in the comments section of [a]), that his > > package is stable while mine is the developmental edition, which is > > not true; the package in [extra] [b] uses git, and therefore [a] > > mine uses git as well. The same practice is used for other > > packages, eg the old now gstreamer0.10 packages. There is simply no > > place for this package, I would go insofar as to say this is > > high-jacking attempt. Please delete. > > > > [a] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-rtmpdump/ > > [b] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/rtmpdump/ > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/GordonGR/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/lib32-rtmpdump-stable/ > > > -- Νῖκος Θεοδώρου «Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»

10 years, 9 months

Re: [PRQ#50999] Deletion Request for makemkv-libaacs

by sL1pKn07 SpinFlo

Tested. this is not need anymore because makemkv install their libraries directly to /usr/lib, and actual players (mpv at least) can handle libmmdb directly (or the library directly overlay these libraries iself), installed or not installed libaacs/libbdplus so, is safe to delete unless a "obscure" software needs it, wich the maintainer should need clarify greetings El lun, 13 nov 2023 a las 23:53, sL1pKn07 SpinFlo (<sl1pkn07(a)gmail.com>) escribió: > > > El lun, 13 nov 2023, 19:07, sL1pKn07 SpinFlo <sl1pkn07(a)gmail.com> > escribió: > >> >> >> El lun, 13 nov 2023 a las 13:32, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> escribió: >> >>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for makemkv-libaacs [2]: >>> >>> Bogus, broken package. >>> But if it did work, it would still not be needed or useful to keep, as >>> it would just replace extra repo's libaacs with a potentially >>> incompatible foreign binary library. >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/makemkv-libaacs/ >> >> >> Hi >> >> for kwedge, "bogus" ? "incompatible" with what? >> >> greetings >> > > Also, if you follow the url in the url in the package, > https://forum.makemkv.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7008, is not a > foreign binary. is a opensource compile-from-sources, part of the > compilation by makemkv package. so, you can fix, can open a issue in the > makemkv forum about that, and fix any incompatibility whit that library. > > greetings > >>

1 year, 8 months

Re: [PRQ#59285] Deletion Request for neovim-symlinks

by Doug Newgard

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:05:51 +0200 Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu> wrote: > On 18 April 2024 20:45:34 GMT+02:00, Doug Newgard <dnewgard(a)outlook.com> > wrote: > >On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:37:46 +0000 > >notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > > >> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for neovim-symlinks [2]: > >> > >> This shim package is an inferior, less compatible > >> duplicate of AUR/neovim-drop-in [a], which > >> has existed for much longer than this one. > >> > >> [a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/neovim-drop-in > >> > >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/neovim-symlinks/ > > > >If you check the git history, you'll see that everything you've said here is > >wrong. It was mistakenly deleted at one point, which makes the dates on the > >site wrong, and we don't want to go through all of that again. > > > In any case, it seems enough to keep AUR/neovim-drop-in. So your idea is to keep the duplicate, that was a duplicate from day one as evidenced by the conflicts array, that has bad provides, installs scripts that don't work anymore (nvim -Z doesn't exist), has undeclared conflicts (exim), and is unmaintained instead of the one that's been maintained this entire time, doesn't had the aforementioned problems, and people actually use, as evidenced by the threads on both reddit and the forums last time it was deleted? Care to explain the your logic here?

1 year, 3 months

Re: [PRQ#43382] Deletion Request for openblas-lapack

by Marcell Meszaros

> The package in community provides the dynamic arch version, whereas this one will be specifically tuned for your current architecture. But this is not a good enough reason to keep PKGBUILDs for the same source in both Arch repo and on AUR. Arch is not a binary-only distribution: all the build scripts are availabe. One can always grab a couple of PKGBUILDs from Arch repo's GitLab for fine-tuned, microarchitecture-optimized rebuild, if that is what they want. But AUR submission guidelines are quite clear: they don't mention allowing duplication for this purpose. On 2 July 2023 17:34:03 GMT+02:00, Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel(a)gmail.com> wrote: >This is not the exactly the same package. The package in community provides >the dynamic arch version, whereas this one will be specifically tuned for >your current architecture. >I've responded in the comments that there is nothing broken at the moment >with this package, and I don't see the need to delete it. > >On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 7:17 AM <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > >> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for openblas-lapack [2]: >> >> Same package is now in [extra], named blas-openblas: >> >> https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/blas-openblas/ >> >> See announcement about it: >> https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual- >> intervention/ >> <https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervent…> >> >> I have notified AUR maintainers in comments about their need to review >> this change, and possibly adapt their PKGBUILD's. >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/openblas-lapack/

2 years, 1 month

[aur-requests] [PRQ#32911] Deletion Request for pycam

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for pycam [2]: Orphaned Python2 and GTK2 based package, last release is from 2019. Broken because of missing Python2-dependencies. There is a working alternative based on Python 3 and up-to-date dependencies: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pycam-git Unfortunately it's hard to predict if and when a new tagged release might happen, as this tool is not for the casual user but for at least serious hobbyists, technicians and designers utilizing Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) and CNC machining. In order to provide a better user experience on AUR, I strongly suggest to delete this orphaned package, as keeping it would only serve as a trap, wasting user time figuring out that yes, the last "stable" tagged release is indeed broken and cannot be made to work. On the other hand, this package should not be updated to an untagged git commit, because that's what the VCS-following pycam-git package is for. The latter -git package works very well, as the developer is now employing GitHub's CI testing services which means that every commit gets tested for errors. This leads to good general build quality, suitable for non-mission-critical production use. Deleting this old package also would help ease some unnecessary burden on AUR maintainers, as this old package depends on very outdated, 10-12 year old components, and some people might feel forced to try to revive those somehow, when in fact those broken dependencies are not at all needed for the new -git version of this application. Whenever there is a new stable version (which might or might not happen in the near future), someone can easily upload a new non-git package by copying the -git package's working PKGBUILD and adapting it to the non-git build. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pycam/

3 years, 5 months

Re: [PRQ#59798] Deletion Request for graphite-web

by Marcell Meszaros

On 30 April 2024 10:42:08 GMT+02:00, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for graphite-web [2]: > >It is not viable to keep this broken package. > >Upstream hasn't released a new version since 2022 [a], and since then >they stopped developing it and only accepted no-impact third party >PR's to the master branch, mostly cosmetic / typo-fix / documentation >fix / minimal config adjustment etc. [b] > >The problem is that this is not compatible with current >Arch/extra/python-django v4, let alone the upcoming v5 (v5.0.4 is in >PyPI, and Arch/extra/python-django is already flagged). > >I've considered the viability of a git package, but this one is >already a VCS build in disguise, and it doesn't help make this work. > >Similarly, the (wrongly named) python3-django-tagging is not >compatible with current python-django v4 (first released in 2021). >That package has been abandoned by its upstream for 4 years. [c] > >No one seems to be using this package off of AUR: 0 votes, 0.000000 >popularity. > >@eggz is not a competent maintainer, he just dismissed my earlier >packaging feedback as irrelevant "chatter". > >There is no testing in PKGBUILD check() so this package passes as if >it was functional. > >[a]: https://github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web >[b]: https://github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web/commits/master/ >[c]: https://github.com/Fantomas42/django-tagging > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/graphite-web/ Package submitter's account has been deleted (@eggz). Safe to delete this broken, unused abandonware.

1 year, 3 months

Re: [PRQ#43231] Deletion Request for beaker-ng-appimage

by Scarlett Haxie

That's not a good justification. "Other people did, so I will too" is a cop-out. Rather than go through and submit deletion requests for any appimage you come across, maybe instead ask for clarification? Seriously, I'm having to maintain a repository of deleted appimage PKGBUILDs because of the amount that you and others have had deleted. Stop it. Unless a rule has been written to disallow appimage packages, there is no reason for you to go around on a mass-deletion spree. On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, 03:11 zxp, <13899872513(a)163.com> wrote: > Hello,Scarlett Haxie > > In fact, I also think so, but I often received comments to the effect > that the bin file already exists, asking me to delete the appimage package > I've submitted. This also includes trusted users. I personally preferd the > appimage package, which actually takes up less space than the bin package. > But currently there seems to be no consensus on the understanding of the > bin and appimage packages, which is why I have to do so. > 在 2023/6/30 08:43, Scarlett Haxie 写道: > > I really have to ask, why is it that you hate appimages? > > You don't seem to understand that a -bin package and an -appimage package > are *not* the same, and do not serve the same purpose. Please stop > submitting these ridiculous requests on your noble quest to rid the world > of appimages, some of us use them and having to transfer every single one > of the programs I use that are in appimage format that you recklessly have > removed from the AUR into my own seperate repo is getting incredibly > tedious and boring. > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, 01:17 , <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > >> zxp19821005 [1] filed a deletion request for beaker-ng-appimage [2]: >> >> use bin(https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/beaker-ng-bin) instead. >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/zxp19821005/ >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/beaker-ng-appimage/ > >

2 years, 1 month

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#5971] Deletion Request for packettracer

by care by john

==> Retrieving sources... -> Downloading Cisco Packet Tracer 6.1.1 for Linux - Ubuntu installation (no tutorials) - Student version.tar.gz... % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0Warning: Transient problem: timeout Will retry in 3 seconds. 3 retries left. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0Warning: Transient problem: timeout Will retry in 3 seconds. 2 retries left. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0Warning: Transient problem: timeout Will retry in 3 seconds. 1 retries left. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0curl: (6) Could not resolve host: Cisco Packet Tracer 6.1.1 for Linux - Ubuntu installation (no tutorials) - Student version.tar.gz ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading http://Cisco Packet Tracer 6.1.1 for Linux - Ubuntu installation (no tutorials) - Student version.tar.gz Aborting... On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:50 PM, care by john <carebyjohn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ah there you are. > > Are these ones downloadable? > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packettracer > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packettracer61 > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/packettracer62 > > All three shows invalid links. > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia(a)archlinux.info> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:04:01 +0000 (UTC) >> notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >> >> > redhat_boy [1] filed a deletion request for packettracer [2]: >> > >> > Remove this page itself, please. New Arch Linux users reaching out to >> > this page by Google search engine and getting confused. >> > >> > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/redhat_boy/ >> > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/packettracer/ >> >> Your inability to understand a package is not a reason to delete it from >> the >> AUR. >> > >

9 years, 1 month

Aur-requests search results for query "Deletion request for pkgbase"