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

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#3401] Deletion Request for nuvolaplayer3

by Michael Corrigan

Requested merge into package with correct name. Please close request. On 26 May 2015 at 15:43, Patrick Burroughs <celti(a)celti.name> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:37:01 +0100 Michael Corrigan > <ghost.vonage(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good afternoon Celti, >> >> The git package refuses to compile for me. That is why I made this >> package. You yourself commented on that package saying that it only >> build with a version of vala that the git package does not depend >> on. Once the git package is updated with this new dependency, I will >> delete this package as requested. > > That's an upstream modification required, I'm pretty sure; it's not a > matter of changing the AUR package to have a specific dependency. > Regardless, it can currently be worked around by downgrading vala > (which few other things depend upon). > >> Also the RPMs are coming from the stable branch of the repo. > > The RPMs are coming from the repository for the stable version of > Fedora; they are still beta builds of NuvolaPlayer, clearly marked as > such on the website. This is both a beta and a binary package and not > marked as either. > >> Kind Regards, >> Michael >> On 26 May 2015 14:45, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: >> >> > Celti [1] filed a deletion request for nuvolaplayer3 [2]: >> > >> > Repackages a (beta) RPM when there's a perfectly good -git package >> > to use. Should at the very least be renamed to >> > nuvolaplayer-beta-bin. >> > >> > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Celti/ >> > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/nuvolaplayer3/ >> > >> > > >

10 years, 3 months

Re: [PRQ#42295] Deletion Request for balena-etcher-appimage

by Ashleigh Rowe

Marcell, as per balena's own naming scheme [a], it is Balena Etcher, this is also true of the name of their binaries [b], the packages on other systems [c], and the name of their distributed releases on the github. Agreed that it should be on the latest full release. etcher-bin is not the same as this package. For someone who claims to have nothing against appimages, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time requesting the deletion of them. [a] https://etcher.balena.io/ [b] https://github.com/balena-io/etcher/releases [c] https://github.com/balena-io/etcher#debian-and-ubuntu-based-package-reposit… On 17/06/2023 18:04, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for balena-etcher-appimage [2]: > > This is not needed. > > Pkgname is wrong: the application's name itself is Etcher: no need to > include vendor's name in package name. [a] > There is no unrelated project package(s) named Etcher in Arch/AUR > repos. > > This package is on a prelelease version (v1.18.8) currently, but it > should not be. A separate package should be created for unstable > releases. > > AUR already has the latest pre-built stable release of this > application (v1.18.4 atm): > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/etcher-bin > > Also the latter package integrates better with the system, without > duplicating libraries. > > The latter package has been much longer on AUR, since 2018, and has > 150 votes. > This one was uploaded in Jan 2023 and has only 6 votes. > > If an AppImage based package is really desired, one should be created > with the name 'etcher-appimage' for latest stable version and/or an > adequately suffixed other package for unstable releases. > > [a]: https://github.com/balena-io/etcher#readme > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/balena-etcher-appimage/

2 years, 2 months

Re: [PRQ#43603] Deletion Request for youtube-downloader-appimage

by Ashleigh Rowe

Hi Marcel, The guidelines are important, yes, however please do bear in mind that not all applications will work with the versions of Electron on the repos, in those situations, as well as in the situation where people wish to have a self-contained program, not dependent on an unknown variable, an appimage is justifiable. I hope you'll take this into consideration when making future requests against -appimage packages. On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 01:54, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for youtube-downloader-appimage > [2]: > > Please don't upload AppImage binaries of Electron- (Chromium) based > applications. > > These are hugely bloated and go against Arch's Electron application > guidelines, namely that they should use and depend on one of the > electron packages carried by Arch repo. > > I know that creating good quality packages is hard work, but that > doesn't mean that it should be okay to spam the AUR with five hundred > foreign binary packages which duplicate a lots of binary libraries and > runtimes already existing in the Arch Linux operating system. > > This is not Windows, where bloat and duplication is the norm. Please > learn and adhere to Linux principles. When there is source available, > use primarily that to build and package an application. Or in case of > Electron applications, you can choose to use the ASAR files with Arch > repo's electron runtime, and create a -bin suffixed electron package. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/youtube-downloader-appimage/

2 years, 2 months

Re: [PRQ#49089] Deletion Request for phonon-qt4-mplayer-git

by sL1pKn07 SpinFlo

hi > There are alternatives for Phonon-Qt4-backends. again. not for mplayer backend. exist out here one called avkode (pure libav implementation), but in not functional state. mplayer works as spected. actual alternatives, vlc or gstreamer, not fit for all people i hope the mpv backend can be ported to Qt4 easily also not need multimedia exclusive program. any Qt4 program (in or out AUR) with own sound notification, preview , whatever or foo can use phonon as sound/video framework greetings El lun, 16 oct 2023 a las 20:34, Marcell Meszaros (< marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu>) escribió: > There are alternatives for Phonon-Qt4-backends. > > But btw there are no longer any functioning multimedia-requiring Qt4 > packages on AUR. > > > On 16 October 2023 20:28:32 GMT+02:00, sL1pKn07 SpinFlo < > sl1pkn07(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> El lun, 16 oct 2023 a las 19:03, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> escribió: >> >>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for phonon-qt4-mplayer-git [2]: >>> >>> Development discontinued since 2012, upstream repo archived. [a] >>> It's not useful to keep this developmental Phonon Qt4 VCS package >>> anymore. >>> >>> [a]: https://invent.kde.org/unmaintained/phonon-mplayer >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/phonon-qt4-mplayer-git/ >> >> >> Hi, >> >> zero non-vcs mplayer (mplayer, no vlc or gstreamer) backend for phonon >> qt4 in AUR, so, git or not, no exist other alternative. and still working >> as expected >> >> greetings >> >

1 year, 10 months

Re: [PRQ#43209] Deletion Request for xdg-utils-custom-open

by Mark Wagie

Yes, you're right. Notice I rejected my deletion request before you replied. ;) Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, June 29th, 2023 at 2:08 PM, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu> wrote: > @yochananmarqos, this deletion request is based on mistaken assumptions. > > TLDR: It is not hard to create a modified package based on xdg-utils source by deleting one script, 'xdg-open', and making the package depend on another package that either has an alternative implementation of that script with the same name, or a symlink with the same name pointing to another shell script that is interface-compatible with the original 'xdg-open'. > > For more details, please kindly read the discussion that took place on 2023-06-27 on the following page: > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/xdg-utils-no-open > (archived: https://archive.ph/zk7uR) > > Ref also owner's merge request [PRQ#43206] from xdg-utils-no-open to xdg-utils-custom-open. > > Please kindly revoke this ill-conceived deletion request and let @jfrankenau implement a viable, Arch-repo-compatible drop-in customization solution for xdg-utils that is mostly similar to what Arch's 'xdg-desktop-portal' package already utilizes: > > https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xdg-desktop-portal/ > > Thank you for your kind cooperation. :) > > Marcell (MarsSeed) > > On 29 June 2023 21:23:34 GMT+02:00, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > > yochananmarqos [1] filed a deletion request for xdg-utils-custom-open > > [2]: > > > > Duplicate of xdg-utils. Custom? How? Open? As opposed to closed? > > There's also a non-existent dependency on xdg-open-impl--whatever that > > is. > > > > "The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of > > the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the > > official package database for the package. If any version of it > > exists, do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of- > > date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking > > a feature, then please file a bug report." > > > > -- > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submiss… > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/yochananmarqos/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/xdg-utils-custom-open/

2 years, 2 months

Re: [PRQ#47124] Deletion Request for lib32-net-snmp

by sL1pKn07 SpinFlo

thats is because none of the packages on aur is builded with lib32-sane support, but yes. is indeed needs in custom builds sl1-wine-git W: Dependency sane detected but optional (libraries ['usr/lib/libsane.so.1'] needed in files ['usr/lib/wine/x86_64-unix/sane.so']) sl1-wine-git W: Dependency lib32-sane detected but optional (libraries ['usr/lib32/libsane.so.1'] needed in files ['usr/lib32/wine/i386-unix/sane.so']) greetings El dom, 10 sept 2023 a las 15:30, Marcell Meszaros (< marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu>) escribió: > >PRQ#45251 is for lib32-sane? also needs for wine > > This is also not true. Only the 64-bit sane is linked to by multilib/wine, > and none of the AUR wine package depend on lib32-sane as well. > > > On 10 September 2023 09:19:45 GMT+02:00, sL1pKn07 SpinFlo < > sl1pkn07(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> El dom, 10 sept 2023 a las 9:17, sL1pKn07 SpinFlo (<sl1pkn07(a)gmail.com>) >> escribió: >> >>> >>> >>> El sáb, 9 sept 2023 a las 13:42, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> escribió: >>> >>>> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for lib32-net-snmp [2]: >>>> >>>> This unmaintained, unused package can be deleted as well after >>>> PRQ#45251. >>>> >>>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >>>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/lib32-net-snmp/ >>> >>> >>> needs for wine >>> >>> greetings >>> >> >> PRQ#45251 is for lib32-sane? also needs for wine >> >> greetings >> >

2 years

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#6184] Deletion Request for ffmpeg-full-nvenc

by Dmitriy Kharitonov

I guess this request should apply to all aur/ffmpeg-full* packages, as they share the same licensing scheme in their PKGBUILDs. Most files in FFmpeg are under LGPL, some optional parts (which are enabled by default in this PKGBUILD) are under GPL. Also, this PKGBUILD includes some options which enable combining with GPL-incompatible external libraries, causing the resulting binary to be unredistributable. The latter is mentioned in UNREDISTRIBUTABLE.txt enclosed with the AUR package. Now I am seeking clarification of license arrays in AUR PKGBUILDs. Should they include only the license of the resulting package as a whole (so, the most restrictive license among its parts)? What are the use cases of multiple license entries, which are mentioned in wiki <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license>? Also, I guess, license in PKGBUILD should be set according to configure options pre-defined by package maintainer, so if some user wants to delete or add the "--use-non-free" line, they should change the license by themselves, but what if the license of the resulting package is decided by the presence of some optdepend library autodetected by ./configure? Finally, I'd be very grateful to to see more coverage of licensing issues in Arch wiki and guides. This area is complicated enough as it is, and applying it to Arch LInux packaging is even more tricky for me. On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:47 PM, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > FredBezies [1] filed a deletion request for ffmpeg-full-nvenc [2]: > > Nonsense in Licenses entry : "GPL, custom:unredistributable " > > How can you mix both GPL and a non-free license in the same time ? > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/FredBezies/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ffmpeg-full-nvenc/ >

9 years

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#7460] Deletion Request for pdf.js

by Bruno Pagani

Le 14/02/2017 à 18:01, Florian Bruhin a écrit : > * Bruno Pagani <bruno.n.pagani(a)gmail.com> [2017-02-14 16:59:10 +0100]: >> Le 08/02/2017 à 22:16, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org a écrit : >> >>> The-Compiler [1] filed a deletion request for pdf.js [2]: >>> >>> Duplicate of pdfjs (without dot) which was first submitted 10 months >>> earlier (and has packages optdepending on it) >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/The-Compiler/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pdf.js/ >> Indeed, but pdf.js seems like a more correct package name in fact. Could >> you agree on the maintainership of it, and file a merge request of pdfjs >> to pdf.js instead? > I'd be fine either way, but [1] says: > > For the sake of consistency, pkgname should match the name of the > source tarball of the software: for instance, if the software is > in foobar-2.5.tar.gz, use pkgname=foobar. > > And the name used in their release tarballs[2] is "pdfjs". > > [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD > [2] https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/releases/download/v1.7.225/pdfjs-1.7.225-… > > Florian Hum, you’re right, and in fact a second look at all the Arch packages shows that only few are in .js, and those are the ones being wrong (by the way, 4 of the 6 concerned are from morealaz). I was tricked because d3.js is the first *js package from this query https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=.js, and that I thought the d3.js packaging should be a reference one given the importance of D3.js in my mind. pdf.js is now merged into pdfjs. @morealaz, can you pushed fixed version of your packages and file merge requests? Thanks. Regards, Bruno

8 years, 6 months

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, 7 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, 10 months

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