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

Re: [PRQ#52300] Deletion Request for airgeddon-git

by Marcell Meszaros

Sorry, my mistake. I see now that indeed this is a superfluous, duplicate request. On 19 December 2023 23:39:25 GMT+01:00, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu> wrote: >I think it is fine for package owner to submit their request. > >Maintainers' own requests show up as filter for PM's, and these get priority treatment. > >Otherwise there's a 4+ month long queue as of now to get the request processed. > >Also, typically there are additional PM's who get involved in addressing maintainers' requests. I guess it's a more straightforward type of submission and therefore it's a bit less mentally burdensome, so it's easier for them to take up even when they are busy with other matters. > >On 19 December 2023 21:41:38 GMT+01:00, Fabio Loli <fabio.loli(a)disroot.org> wrote: >>> BoBeR182 [1] filed a deletion request for airgeddon-git [2]: >>> >>> As maintainer of this package (airgeddon-git), we were aligned with >>> the "airgeddon" package maintainer. Now we co-maintain it. We decided >>> to leave "airgeddon" package instead of this one. Not needed and it >>> duplicates maintenance effort. >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/BoBeR182/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/airgeddon-git/ >> >>A deletion request is already pending, please don't submit duplicate >>requests

2 years

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#7949] Deletion Request for scalafmt

by Christian Krause

ah, that URL change escaped my attention, it's updated now :) best regards On 04/18/2017 05:58 PM, Diego Alvarez Zuluaga wrote: > Although latest release is v0.6.8 https://github.com/scalameta/scalafmt/releases/tag/v0.6.8 > and Upstream URL now is http://scalameta.org/scalafmt/ instead of https://olafurpg.github.io/scalafmt/ > > Thanks > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:52 AM Diego Alvarez Zuluaga <diego.alvarez.zuluaga(a)gmail.com > <mailto:diego.alvarez.zuluaga@gmail.com>> wrote: > > OMG I'm so sorry, I thought it was a feedback request for the maintainer. > Sorry about that > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 7:55 AM Christian Krause <christian.krause(a)mailbox.org > <mailto:christian.krause@mailbox.org>> wrote: > > Hello, > > First of all, there is no version 0.6.8 for **scalafmt**, the latest one is 0.6.3 and the AUR version is up to > date. > > Secondly, why use a deletion request for this? > > Best Regards > > > On 04/17/2017 06:42 PM, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org <mailto:notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > > d1egoaz [1] filed a deletion request for scalafmt [2]: > > > > Could you please update to latest scalafmtv 0.6.8 > > > > thank you > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/d1egoaz/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/scalafmt/ > >

8 years, 8 months

Re: [PRQ#37466] Deletion Request for featherwallet-bin

by jahway603

THIS PACKAGE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. If you look @ monero-feather's PKGBUILD, you will see the following in it: build() { cd "${srcdir}/${pkgname}" make release } That means that "monero-feather" is compiling this from source code and is named correctly. 2. If you then look at my feathwallet-bin PKGBUILD, you will see that I do not compile from source code like "monero-feather" pkg and instead install pre-compiled binaries; so this package is named correctly. 3. I originally wanted to use "monero-feather-bin" for my pkg name, but that name was already taken. If you look at this PKGBUILD you will see that it's using an AppImage & should really be called "monero-feather-appimage", and is misnamed. Any questions, please let me know. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, September 19th, 2022 at 1:35 AM, <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > vorot93 [1] filed a deletion request for featherwallet-bin [2]: > > Duplicate of monero-feather > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/vorot93/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/featherwallet-bin/

3 years, 3 months

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

by sL1pKn07 SpinFlo

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 >

2 years, 1 month

[PRQ#65773] Deletion Request for automedia-git

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for automedia-git [2]: Violates the Arch VCS package guidelines since at least 2022 when I pointed out that this should not use a tarball as source. The issue has not been addressed since, despite @patlefort's request for the same from this year. Maintainer blatantly follows this practice with all their AUR '-git' packages, despite multiple requests from different users to make the necessary packaging corrections. There are other issues here, like: - compiling source code inside package(), - and forcing a static build with musl instead of making a regular gcc/glibc compilation, and static-bundling a heavily vulnerable old version of cjson (copy-pasted cJSON.{c,h} from 2020 to the source distribution) instead of using the most secure, API-compatible release [a], available as a shared lib in Arch/extra/cjson. There is no actual evidence that anyone is using this off of AUR. Votes: 0 Popularity: 0.000000 Last comments apart from the packaging rule violation related ones (mine from 2022 and @patlefort's from 2024) are from 2020. [a]: https://github.com/DaveGamble/cJSON/compare/v1.7.14...v1.7.18 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/automedia-git/

1 year, 1 month

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#18272] Deletion Request for r-gdal

by viktor drobot

oh, I got it. will be careful next time:) пн, 9 мар. 2020 г., 12:59 Jonas Witschel <diabonas(a)archlinux.org>: > On 2020-03-09 01:11, notify--- via aur-requests wrote: > > dviktor [1] filed a deletion request for r-gdal [2]: > > > > package name is invalid. the right one is r-rgdal > > > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/dviktor/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/r-gdal/ > > While I agree with the renames proposed in PRQ#18272 through PRQ#18276, > it is considered good form to bring up such issues in the package > comments first to give the current maintainers a chance to deal with the > rename themselves. > > Given that you have already uploaded fresh packages under the new names > today, I suggest adding the current maintainers of the old packages as > co-maintainers of the new packages: at least some of them appear to be > active, e.g. r-gdal was updated just today. > > Procedurally it would be better to have filed merge requests instead of > deletion requests to merge the old into the new name: this preserves > votes and comments and gives a clearer indication of what happened to > the old package. > > Best regards, > Jonas > >

5 years, 9 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#24378] Merge Request for python-kb

by Christopher Snowhill (kode54)

I did not say you had to, but it helps if anyone is actually using the package, to notice on update that it changed name. Safe to ignore I guess if nobody has voted for the package. > On Mar 25, 2021, at 9:40 PM, notify--- via aur-requests <aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > > gnebbia [1] filed a request to merge python-kb [2] into kb [3]: > > I requested the deletion, but somebody told I have to request the > merge! > So I request the merge for this package! > I only want "kb" to be available. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/gnebbia/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-kb/ > [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/kb/

4 years, 8 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#407] Deletion Request for python-argparse

by Doug Newgard

On 2014-08-03 10:15, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 at 15:33:28, Doug Newgard wrote: >> On 2014-08-03 08:26, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >> > mawcomw [1] filed a deletion request for python-argparse [2]: >> > >> > It was a split package, and now i will use two pkgbuilds, one for >> > python2 and another for python3. >> > >> > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/mawcomw/ >> > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-argparse/ >> >> So upload the py3 version to the current python-argparse package, then >> upload a new python2-argparse. No need to remove what's there. >> > > Agreed. I would also be interested in why you would like to replace a > split package with two separate packages? This actually makes sense to me. Most people will only want one version or the other of the lib, depending on what software is using it. Having it as a split package forces them to build both and have all the deps for both installed. Makes sense in a binary repo, not so much in the AUR.

11 years, 4 months

Re: [PRQ#43370] Deletion Request for find-orb-git

by Yuriy Ivanov

In debian they are called correctly. There are several projects. I noticed it just now: https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/pluto-find-orb https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/pluto-jpl-eph https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/pluto-lunar https://salsa.debian.org/debian-astro-team/pluto-sat-code 02.07.2023 11:45, Marcell Meszaros пишет: >> It should be called "pluto-find-orb-git" > Why? > > I don't think so. > > The name of the application is "Find_orb". [a] > > Developed as part of the Pluto Project. > > So I think the current AUR package name can remain. > > [a]:https://www.projectpluto.com/find_orb.htm > > On 2 July 2023 07:58:27 GMT+02:00,notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote: >> Mr.Smith1974 [1] filed a deletion request for find-orb-git [2]: >> >> Please remove the package, because I made a mistake with the name. It >> should be called "pluto-find-orb-git" >> >> [1]https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Mr.Smith1974/ >> [2]https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/find-orb-git/

2 years, 5 months

Re: [PRQ#48535] Deletion Request for cura-5-plugin-octoprint

by Marcell Meszaros

Also this package is currently a hybrid VCS+non-VCS package, as pointed out by @Auerhuhn in a comment on 2022-08-16. This has not been remediated ever since. AUR has a proper VCS package for this plugin. [a] That is what users can rely on until a rule-conforming stable package gets uploaded. [a]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/cura-plugin-octoprint-git On 8 October 2023 02:42:39 GMT+02:00, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for cura-5-plugin-octoprint [2]: > >Rename and resubmit as 'cura-plugin-octoprint' > >But don't create two split packages with only a different dash in >their names. > >(Currently this PKGBUILD creates the following split packages: >- cura5-plugin-octoprint >- cura-5-plugin-octoprint) > >Latest version of cura is 5.4.0, that is why it is needed to eliminate >the major version number from the pkgname. > >Also, upstream does not maintain different stable major versions in >parallel. > >[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/cura-5-plugin-octoprint/

2 years, 2 months

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