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

[PRQ#46940] Deletion Request for motivewave-latest-bin

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

xavierbaez [1] filed a deletion request for motivewave-latest-bin [2]: This guy Xiota is a stalked. He is flagging out of date to AUR for no reason. Even with the exact same lines of code, he has nothing better to do to try to bring motivewave down. I have already asked him to focus on his duties with other packages. He also works for Chaotic AUR, where he removed motivewave, then inmediately asked for a change, then deleted motivewave again, and then went again against motivewave on 09/02/2023 saying it's out of date. Both packages use the exact same deb file as source. Please fix the following issues: a) `PKGBUILD` contains `chmod` syntax error. You have the same CHMOD issues as motivewave Here is the evidence Original package motivewave: find "$pkgdir" -exec chmod g-w {} + Stalker package: find "$pkgdir" -exec chmod g-w {} + [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/xavierbaez/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/motivewave-latest-bin/

2 years, 3 months

Re: [PRQ#75194] Deletion Request for looking-glass

by O. Pakker

Hi, It is being maintained, unfortunately the binutils change coincided with me moving and as such I've not been able to do be on-top of rebuild bumps and such directly. I'm working on setting my systems back up this weekend so by Sunday it should be updated. I'll also add a message pin to not contact upstream if people encounter issues. I thought I had already done so but I guess I forgot. My sincere apologies for the noise that must have created the past week or so. Kind Regards, Omar Pakker On August 8, 2025 11:25:05 AM UTC, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >gnif [1] filed a deletion request for looking-glass [2]: > >The `looking-glass-host` for Linux is unmaintained, incomplete and >non-functional. Please stop providing a package for it, you're causing >us support issues. > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/gnif/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/looking-glass/

4 months, 1 week

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#2297] Deletion Request for pypy3-pip

by Chi Hsuan Yen

It's possible to remove pypy-pip, pypy-setuptools and pypy after the installation, but it may not be a a good option for AUR packages. Sorry for the annoyance. On 9 February 2015 at 23:08, Marek Petrik <marekpetrik(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Please do not delete the package. I do not want to have to install pypy > (which is a separate package from pypy3) just to install pip for pypy3. > > I updated the package. > > Marek > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:15 AM, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > >> yan12125 [1] filed a deletion request for pypy3-pip [2]: >> >> I would like to update my package pypy-pip to include both pypy-pip >> and pypy3-pip but the system forbids me to do so. In addition, this >> package is out-of-date. >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/yan12125/ >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pypy3-pip/ >> >> >

10 years, 10 months

Re: [PRQ#62275] Deletion Request for ume-git

by Alexander Tumin

If you have a problem with building this PKGBUILD - use comment section on AUR or my email to provide details, works on my machine(tm) (and every other I have lying around). Sakura may be more actively maintained, but still lacks patches necessary for configuring colors without recompiling, since all color-schemes are hard-coded, making it less practical to use. On 2024-08-19 02:03, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for ume-git [2]: > > Broken, discontinued fork of sakura, abandoned on AUR and by upstream > since 2020. [a] > > Cannot be built from this PKGBUILD. > > Original upstream sakura is actively being maintained [b], > and a stable package for it exists in Arch/extra repo. [c] > > [a]: https://github.com/SgtWiggles/ume > [b]: https://github.com/dabisu/sakura > [c]: https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=sakura > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ume-git/

1 year, 4 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#20463] Deletion Request for befungee-git

by Magnus Boman

On 26/07/2020 14:50, Anton Leontiev wrote: > <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org <mailto:notify@aur.archlinux.org>>: > > katt [1] filed a deletion request for befungee-git [2]: > > Using legacy git download method instead of proper source > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/katt/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/befungee-git/ > > > I don't understand the reason. Package builds successfully. > > Please don't delete the package. Post a comment to update PKGBUILD instead. > > Best regards, > Anton Leontiev While it may build successfully, it is not done properly. You should be using the source array for downloading, as specified in the guidelines. Furthermore your PKGBUILD is lacking a pkgver() function, no contact details (template still in place) and all that sed'ing should perhaps be in prepare() instead, but that of course must wait until you stop abusing build(). I recommend taking a good read through the VCS packaging guidelines: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_package_guidelines Cheers, katt.

5 years, 4 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#11321] Deletion Request for musicbrainz

by Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen

Den 05-05-2018 kl. 15:48 skrev notify--- via aur-requests: > gspu [1] filed a deletion request for musicbrainz [2]: > > You can delete this repo since there is extra/libmusicbrainz5 5.1.0-2 > > AUR-Version is: > musicbrainz 2.1.5-8 > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/gspu/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/musicbrainz/ I'm pretty sure those are not the same though: AUR's "musicbrainz" library uses the MusicBrainz Web Service (API) v1, while libmb5 is using the WS v2. Programs depending on libmb will not work with libmb5 AFAIK. That said, MB WS v1 is deprecated and will (finally!) be entirely discontinued soon[1], so it may be a good idea to remove "musicbrainz" (and possibly packages that depend on it) either now or on August 1st. [1] https://blog.musicbrainz.org/2018/02/01/web-service-ver-1-0-ws-1-will-be-re… -- Namasté, Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen <https://freso.dk/> AUR: https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Freso Wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Freso

7 years, 7 months

[aur-requests] mail to original submitter? (was: Re: [PRQ#4834] Deletion Request for pcmanx-gtk2-git)

by Jens Adam

Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:52:40 -0600 Doug Newgard <scimmia(a)archlinux.info>: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:31:15 +0000 (UTC) > notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > > > xatierlike [1] filed a deletion request for pcmanx-gtk2-git [2]: > > > > v1.3 has been released, please update. > > > > https://github.com/pcman-bbs/pcmanx/releases/tag/1.3 > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/xatierlike/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/pcmanx-gtk2-git/ > > LOL, I think you hit the wrong link Not related to this package/request, but: Shouldn't the original submitter also be (automatically) Cc'ed on these mails? When somebody (like Doug here, and certainly others before) just uses Reply or Reply-to-all the original 'flagger' has to be subscribed to this list to see the reply. Feature request? Further discussion on aur-dev? I'm in a hurry and only noticed https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31851 so far. --byte

9 years, 10 months

Re: [PRQ#61132] Deletion Request for android-studio

by Julian Raufelder

Hey all, As Co-Maintainer of android-studio (SailReal), I have no idea why this user created a deletion request for https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/android-studio while pasting in this request a log of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/android-studio-canary? Please reject it. All the best Julian On 27/06/2024 17:32, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > a937983423 [1] filed a deletion request for android-studio [2]: > > android-studio-canary > [0.016s][warning][cds] Archived non-system classes are disabled > because the java.system.class.loader property is specified (value = > "com.intellij.util.lang.PathClassLoader"). To use archived non-system > classes, this property must not be set > CompileCommand: exclude > com/intellij/openapi/vfs/impl/FilePartNodeRoot.trieDescend bool > exclude = true > [0.081s][error ][jfr,startup] > /usr/lib/jvm/java-22-openjdk/lib/libnio.so: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-22-openjdk/lib/libnio.so: undefined symbol: > reuseport_available > java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-22-openjdk/lib/libnio.so: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-22-openjdk/lib/libnio.so: undefined symbol: > reuseport_available > Error occurred during initialization of VM > Failure when starting JFR on_create_vm_2 > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/a937983423/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/android-studio/

1 year, 5 months

[PRQ#67423] Deletion Request for garu

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

a821 [1] filed a deletion request for garu [2]: I suggest to delete this abandoned package because: The PKGBUILD does not follow the guidelines. I pointed this out a year ago in the comments without reaction. No comments besides mine. No votes. Development started and stopped about the same time of the AUR submission [0] (dev was maintainer). Finally, this AUR helper isn't very good. It just downloads the PKGBUILD via the cgit interface (git clone?, what's that?), recreates the .SRCINFO, and then runs "makepkg -i --noconfirm" [1]. No chance to inspect the PKGBUILD before sourcing it, and obviously it doesn't work if the PKGBUILD includes additional files (eg patches) because they are not downloaded. To me this looks like a programming exercise. Safe to delete. [0] https://github.com/daviseidel/garu/commits/main/ [1] https://github.com/daviseidel/garu/blob/main/cmd/install.go [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/a821/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/garu/

1 year

[PRQ#37788] Deletion Request for anbox-modules-dkms

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

eNV25 [1] filed a deletion request for anbox-modules-dkms [2]: This packages if has various issues, and the maintainer doesn't seem to want to fix them. A summary of the issues by the user Omar007: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/anbox-modules-dkms#comment-876031 I sent a Merge Request for this package anbox-modules-dkms into anbox- modules-dkms-git, 10 months ago, because at the time this was a VCS package without the -git suffix. That new package was written from scratch and fixed all these issues. The request was accepted. Afterwards, the maintainer disagreed with the decision and reinstated the exact same package, but only changed the VCS source to be pinned to a specific commit. None of the original issues were fixed. Even after another user, Omar007, pointed it out again. Merge Request. https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- requests(a)lists.archlinux.org/message/2FKYKAZX63DWAJI64SEPXOHZZLH65X3A/ Previous Deletion Request. https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur- requests(a)lists.archlinux.org/message/O24IROA4P5DQSIQQJWD2NYPPL54AGLUK/ I also think there is no reason for this package to exist, since it is just a disguised VCS package whose version will be manually updated by the maintainer for every commit anyway. An orphan request doesn't make sense. anbox-modules-dkms-git should be used instead. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/eNV25/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/anbox-modules-dkms/

3 years, 2 months

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