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

[aur-requests] [PRQ#32186] Deletion Request for libx32-libldap

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for libx32-libldap [2]: Please delete libx32- and -x32 AUR packages: • Packages have not been updated in 6 years or more. • Owner replied in email to me, agreeing to the deletion. • In case of libx32- packages, naming violates Arch guidelines*. Name should end with '-x32', not start with 'libx32-'. • Most such packages cannot be built because of already dropped dependencies from AUR. • Even if built, X32 executables won't work with any mainstream kernels from any distros. Only on kernels custom-built with niche x32 ABI support. • Whoever wants to use such a special architecture would not be able to use it from unbuildable, unmaintained 6-year old build scripts from the AUR. But they could use Debian x32 or build Gentoo from scratch for the x32 ABI, or find some IoT-specific distro (X32 ABI might be relevant for some low-end IoT devices). [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/libx32-libldap/

3 years, 10 months

Re: [PRQ#45664] Deletion Request for python2-pyo

by Matthieu Amiguet

I'm the maintainer of the package. It's true that I did not maintain this package properly lately. Also, maintaining such a package for python2 makes less and less sense. I agree to delete it, only I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do this... Cheers, Matthieu Le 31.07.23 à 14:26, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org a écrit : > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for python2-pyo [2]: > > Nothing depends on this Python2 module from 2018, and it's broken > because its wxpython dependency fails to build. > > Also this package wrongly states it provides 'python-pyo', which it > does not. There exists a separate package on AUR for the Python3 > variant. > > Safe to delete this defunct one. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python2-pyo/

2 years, 4 months

Re: [PRQ#46534] Deletion Request for python-you-live

by Marcell Meszaros

Despite AUR/python-pyexecjs having been supplanted by python-pyexecjs2, this package is still defunct: now it builds, but execution fails with JSONDecodeError when being given the proper arguments. Also btw this is a console application. If someone ever decides to maintain a working PKGBUILD for it on AUR, it should be named without the 'python-' prefix. Meanwhile people can install the latest version with pipx - and that version seems to work fine. On 21 August 2023 04:28:41 GMT+02:00, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for python-you-live [2]: > >Orphan, broken package from 2020. >There are no comments and nothing depends on it. >Its mandatory dependency, python-pyexecjs has been broken for years >(it is also discontinued upstream since 2018). > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-you-live/

2 years

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#22058] Deletion Request for 3proxy-git

by brent s.

On 10/27/20 19:50, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > naruto522ru [1] filed a deletion request for 3proxy-git [2]: > > Doesn't meet Arch packaging standards. I ask the appropriate measures > to either remove or force the accompanying person to correct it so > that this PKGBUILD meets them. There is also a complaint about the > 3proxy package, it does not meet the requirements. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/naruto522ru/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/3proxy-git/ > Hey, I'm the maintainer of 3proxy-git. In what way does it not meet Arch packaging guidelines?[0] You have not specified whatsoever where the issue is. Additionally, you would need to file a request separately for 3proxy, if indeed a valid request, if you have not done so already as it is a separate AUR package and a separate maintainer. [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines -- brent saner https://square-r00t.net/ GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info

5 years, 1 month

[aur-requests] [PRQ#35363] Deletion Request for rsb-process-monitor-git

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for rsb-process-monitor-git [2]: Orphaned VCS package. The https://projects.cor-lab.org website's SSL certificate has expired; shows an empty loginwall. Does not tell what it was. No copies on web.archive.org. (cor-lab.org redirects to new "Cor-Lab" site of Universität Bielefeld: Research Institute for Cognition and Robotics.) Dependencies from the same dead project used Python 2 and the now missing python2-protobuf. Google discontinued Python 2 support, current binary protobuf incompatible with old Python 2 module. The source is also not available, the university's server cannot provide any working access to git client (unable to connect). I was not able to find alternative sources or websites for the project, so it seems it's unmaintained and has been discontinued. Safe to delete this package; nothing depends on it. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/rsb-process-monitor-git/

3 years, 6 months

[PRQ#49315] Deletion Request for qt5-location-git

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for qt5-location-git [2]: Not useful to keep this package. Qt5 is EOL since May 2023. This PKGBUILD currently builds from upstream's dev branch for Qt6, and a pkgver() that does not properly guarantee monotonic increase. Also, Qt Group's public Qt5 branch is typically behind the source used by the stable PKGBUILD in extra repo, because Qt devs delay pushing Qt5 patches by one year, whereas the KDE project cherry-picks and backports most of the patches accepted for Qt5 but not yet publicly pushed by Qt Group. Therefore the extra repo build is better for users to use, because it is based on newer code which has less bugs. And because of all this, the extra/qt5* packages are quite like git VCS packages. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/qt5-location-git/

2 years, 2 months

[aur-requests] [PRQ#7175] Deletion Request for docbook-xml-dtd

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

rafaelff [1] filed a deletion request for docbook-xml-dtd [2]: This package provides docbook xml DTD v4.4, which is already provided pkg 'docbook-xml', so it is redundant. This package is Also dangerous to DTD catalog installed in the system by official pkgs like docbook-xml, docbook-sgml, etc. because it installs catalog in wrong file and messes up the list of current installed. The .install file is bugged (e.g. the post-remove function installs instead of removing!) Because of these issues, I once requested its deletion ([PRQ#5684] Deletion Request for docbook-xml-dtd [1]) in June 2016, but it was denied with reason "Please settle the things with the package maintainer" -- well, I tried without any fix by the maintainer. He states he fixed, but there was no package update so far. Recently, another user[2] had the same problem as me and gaddly I was notified about it and was able to share my diagnostics and solution. Please delete this package as it is useless (redundant) and dangerous. [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- requests/2016-June/011916.html [2] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1673353 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/rafaelff/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docbook-xml-dtd/

8 years, 11 months

[aur-requests] [PRQ#17199] Deletion Request for ungoogled-chromium-archlinux

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

eschwartz [1] filed a deletion request for ungoogled-chromium- archlinux [2]: Pinned comment: > unfortunately, I cannot change the package name as there is another package with the same name that the maintainer refused to update for some odd reasons. hence why I created this port. the fix for now is to manually change the name in PKGBUILD while building it locally until that maintainer removes the out of date package. So, you're saying this is a shameless duplicate, and instead of going through the proper procedure of submitting an orphan request, or alternatively, coming to an agreement with the maintainer of ungoogled-chromium, you decided to confuse everyone by having "ungoogled-chromium" and "ungoogled-chromium but I promise this is the real ungoogled-chromium, so I'll call it 'archlinux' too". No. Just... no. This is a duplicate. Don't do this. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eschwartz/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ungoogled-chromium-archlinux/

5 years, 11 months

[aur-requests] [PRQ#34598] Deletion Request for bareftp-legacy

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

figue [1] filed a deletion request for bareftp-legacy [2]: This software is unmaintained and recently the author email me to point that the origin website was reuploaded by some scammers, so I think it's time to remove the package. This is the mail: Hi I'm the old maintainer of bareftp. I just wanted to ask you to change the url for the project and package source. I do not own the domain bareftp.org any longer and haven't done it for a while. Some scammers have now bought the domain and pose as the old site only to direct people to some shady russian site. The new permanent url is https://bareftp.cencit.no The latest package is https://bareftp.cencit.no/release/bareftp-0.3.12.tar.gz Or you may simply remove the whole thing (can't imagine many users..) Regards Christian Eide [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/figue/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/bareftp-legacy/

3 years, 7 months

Re: [PRQ#44381] Deletion Request for ros-arch-deps

by Kartik Mohta

ROS1 (noetic) is still supported, it's EOL is in May 2025, and is actively being used by the community. I don't see a reason to delete this metapackage. On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 01:29, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for ros-arch-deps [2]: > > Unmaintained metapackage "for building ROS" (Robot Operating System). > Last updated in 2021. Not stated, but it is for "ROS 1". > > Not useful to keep: pulls in several deprecated, discontinued tools > that are no longer used in the ROS toolchain and might even be broken. > > Current ROS distributions are referred to as "ROS 2". There is a > relevant metapackage on AUR for building that: ros2-arch-deps. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ros-arch-deps/ -- Kartik

2 years, 5 months

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