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

Re: [PRQ#43405] Deletion Request for electron-xdg-bin

by Marcell Meszaros

Scarlett, Thank you for your feedback. However, let me try to clarify the situation. The XDG Base Directory Specification is a de-facto standard. Arch Linux is a distribution that extensively conforms to this specification throughout a large number of core and extra packages that are part of the commonly used desktop environments. [a] If a package does not respect the configured XDG directories, it should be addressed via bug ticket. For more details, please read the Arch wiki article about the topic. [a] Marcell (MarsSeed) [a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_Base_Directory On 2 July 2023 16:32:42 GMT+02:00, Scarlett Haxie <administrator(a)hax.ie> wrote: >Marcel, > >The XDG configuration (moving the .pki folder) is not a standard thing and is not a "bug" or a feature request the main repo packages would change, as it's non-standard. > >As a result, this is not a duplicate of the repo's electron package, nor are any of the others you flagged in the past 15 minutes, Please kindly revoke your deletion requests. > >Scarlett. > >On 02/07/2023 15:14, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: >> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for electron-xdg-bin [2]: >> >> Duplicate of repo 'electron', pkg owner's build. >> >> @noahvogt, please file your xdg configuration patch as part of a bug / >> feature request ticket for the repo package. Don't duplicate it on >> AUR. >> >> Also no one flagged this as out-of-date, nor mentioned it. >> >> As per AUR submission guidelines [a]: >> >> "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." >> >> [a]: >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/electron-xdg-bin/

2 years, 5 months

Re: [PRQ#49388] Deletion Request for ffmpeg-obs

by tytan652

> MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for ffmpeg-obs [2]: > > Arch extra repo carries obs-studio and ffmpeg, and the two seem to > work just fine with each other. > > OBS studio carries two very minimal, one-line patches for ffmpeg. > > One is a crude hack for flvdec (FLV decoder), to handle > 'TYPE_UNKNOWN'. FLV is practically a dead format (Flash Video). This > patch makes FFMPEG accept FLV files with malformed/nonexistent header, > which is not really something that people would need in general. > > The other is for AOMenc, minimally changing the default quality preset > - which is configurable via command line option anyway. > > Hardy any of these changes are essential. > > Please kindly delete this package, it doesn't seem worth the trouble > to keep it. > > In case there is a bug with OBS Studio and its use of FFMPEG, please > file a bug report in Arch bug tracking system and preferably with > upstream as well (OBS and/or FFMPEG, whichever is relevant). This is > what the AUR submission guidelines is asking for as well, instead of > creating duplicates of repo packages on AUR. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/ffmpeg-obs/ This package is meant to provide a FFmpeg build the closest as possible of what OBS Project uses, also I can't predict. Resuming it as two minimal patch is wrong, RIST support is also added and there is also NVENC fixes by using commit after the release tag. The AOM pacth does change the default but number of quality level to what upstream AOM provides which is 10 where FFmpeg use 8. OBS Studio relies on those changes, and I can't predict when OBS will need to patch FFmpeg again once those are potentially upstreamed by OBS Project. I'm against the deletion.

2 years, 1 month

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#5367] Deletion Request for brother-dcp7060d

by Doug Newgard

On Tue, 3 May 2016 19:17:26 +0000 (UTC) notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > snowdust [1] filed a deletion request for brother-dcp7060d [2]: > > @ewolnux > > I am running Arch-based ApricityOs (www.apricity.com) and I have a > Brother multifunctional usb DCP-7060D printer/scanner. In a terminal > window I installed the above package (yaourt brother-dcp7060d). > Unfortunately, this is not a happy story. > > a) In Settings/Printers/, Print Test Page does not work and when > clicking the 'Show Jobs' button a window pops up showing a 'No Active > Printer Jobs' message. > > b) Launched LibreOffice Writer, opened a document, in the 'Print > Preview' window clicking the Print icon made the 'Print Options' > window pop up. In the 'Print Options' window, under the General Tab, > I clicked the 'Properties' button which made the Properties window to > display. > In the 'Properties' window, under the Paper tab, are listed the > following items: Paper size, Orientation, Duplex, Paper tray. > Paper size and Orientation have default values that cannot be changed; > Duplex and Paper tray have no default values at all (empty). > These 4 items also have an unresponsive arrowhead pointing downward > making it impossible to select other values than the default ones. > > c) In /usr/share/brother/Printer/DCP7060D/ folder... I see only the > lpd and cupswarpper drivers. There are not scanner drivers. > > d) In /usr/shere/brother/Printer/DCP7060D/inf/ folder... again no > scanner file. > > I have been trying for more than a week to find a solution without > success. Thanks for considering the above. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/snowdust/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/brother-dcp7060d/ None of this sounds like a reason to delete this from the AUR, especially when you're not even running Arch.

9 years, 7 months

Re: [PRQ#44611] Deletion Request for picom-simpleanims-next-git

by Christopher

MarsSeed mentioned that it doesn't make sense to have this package, but I have a few points. First of all, the "next" branch in fdev31's picom fork was actually updated in March, while the animations-pr branch (the branch used in picom-simpleanims-git) was updated in April. The two branches were updated just one month apart, which really isn't enough to say that "fdev31 is working in other branches, not in the 'next' branch." Secondly, I wanted to highlight a weird bug in the upstream "next" branch by FT-Labs concerning the displaying of shadows on right-click menus, at least on the window managers I have tested it on. I have found that this particular branch of fdev31's fork does not have this issue after testing it on a few window managers. It is somewhat hard to explain, so I can try to send a video if it would help. Considering that the upstream branch has a few bugs and the branch my package uses isn't unmaintained, I think my package isn't really useless. ---- On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 04:26:56 -0400 <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote --- MarsSeed [1] filed a deletion request for picom-simpleanims-next-git [2]: It doesn't make sense to have this package. The "next" branch of AUR/picom-simpleanims-git, which is actually GitHub/fdev31/picom#next is based on an older clone of the upstream 'next' branch. Developer fdev31 is working in other branches, not in the 'next' branch. AUR/picom-simpleanims-git is maintained by same developer, and that is based on the newest version of the code. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/picom-simpleanims-next-git/

2 years, 5 months

Re: [PRQ#74704] Deletion Request for vital-synth

by billGat48

to walk you through my reasoning, Extracting the two versions of the .deb with tar and doing diff -r diff -r aur-extract/ official-extract/ Binary files aur-extract/control.tar.gz and official-extract/control.tar.gz differ Binary files aur-extract/data.tar.gz and official-extract/data.tar.gz differ Binary files aur-extract/usr/bin/Vital and official-extract/usr/bin/Vital differ Binary files aur-extract/usr/lib/clap/Vital.clap and official-extract/usr/lib/clap/Vital.clap differ Binary files aur-extract/usr/lib/vst/Vital.so and official-extract/usr/lib/vst/Vital.so differ Binary files aur-extract/usr/lib/vst3/Vital.vst3/Contents/x86_64-linux/Vital.so and official-extract/usr/lib/vst3/Vital.vst3/Contents/x86_64-linux/Vital.so differ so the main executable,VST plugin,VST3 plugin,and CLAP plugin have been altered (potential GPLv3 violation?) but I see the official donwload metadata is Feb 18 2023 the bonecountysherif github hosted is Oct 26 2022 so maybe this should just be flagged out of date and what's on the AUR is one of the earlier versions 1.5.1 - 1.5.4, but I still feel there's something dangerous here given someone is claiming this is the official 1.5.5. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Sunday, July 20th, 2025 at 11:13 AM, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > billGate48 [1] filed a deletion request for vital-synth [2]: > > maintainer is self hosting a file > source_x86_64=("${pkgname}-${pkgver}-${pkgrel}.deb::https://github.com/bonecountysheriff/${pkgname_deb}/releases/download/${pkgver}/${pkgname_deb}.deb") > that is not the same file as they claim it to be > https://account.vital.audio/ (you'd need to make an account to verify) > > sha512sum gives different results for the 2 different files. If this > isn't against the arch package guidelines, it fucking should be > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/billGate48/ > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/vital-synth/

4 months, 3 weeks

[PRQ#53811] Merge Request for exteragram-desktop-git Rejected

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

Request #53811 has been Rejected by MarsSeed [1]: Closing non-owner's request, as there is a too long backlog of such. @westpain, please be so kind as to submit a merge request from exteragram-desktop-git to rabbitgram-desktop-git, to remove the old package in favor of the renamed newer one. Here's a quick link for you from where you can submit requests; you can choose either 'Deletion' or 'Merge', whichever you choose: https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/exteragram-desktop-git/request 'Merge' is better because it transfers AUR user notification subscriptions from the old package to the target one. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/MarsSeed/

1 year, 8 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#4005] Deletion Request for entop

by Aaron France

I had no notifications of people saying they were broken. I had no time until recently to update them. I'll get to it this weekend. On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 at 12:25 WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 September 2015 at 10:13, Aaron France <aaron.l.france(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm upgrading to the latest AUR4 stuff, they will be fixed. No need to > > delete. I doubt anyone is even using these packages besides me! > > > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 at 11:10 WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 11 September 2015 at 00:28, Aaron France <aaron.l.france(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Why is a deletion filed before anything else? > >> > > >> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 at 00:30 <notify(a)aur.archlinux.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> WorMzy [1] filed a deletion request for entop [2]: > >> >> > >> >> Broken, ancient, PKGBUILD > >> >> > >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/WorMzy/ > >> >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/entop/ > >> >> > >> > > >> Let me answer your question with another question: why upload clearly > >> outdated PKGBUILDs in the first place? > > Other people _are_ trying to use them, which is what drew them to my > attention in the first place. You say you were (are?) going to update > them, but you were the previous maintainer of at least two of these > packages[1][2], and pacman 4.2 came out nine months ago and you still > haven't updated them. How much longer is it going to take? Uploading a > broken PKGBUILD is bad enough, but then leaving it in a broken state > for months on end is even worse. > > [1] > http://web.archive.org/web/20150801021347/https://aur.archlinux.org/package… > [2] > http://web.archive.org/web/20150801154108/https://aur.archlinux.org/package… >

10 years, 3 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#36474] Deletion Request for powerpill

by Marcell Meszaros

I understand your frustration completely. And for what it's worth, I fully disagree with any indiscriminate geoblocking by public hosting providers for political or ideological reasons, absent of any valid justification (of which I can barely name any). But still, please try to be reasonable with respect to this issue. By the logic of your deletion proposal, all Qt software should be banned from Linux because The Qt Company also geoblocks Russian Federation IP addresses. On 19 July 2022 11:44:42 GMT+02:00, "Дмитрий Елисеев" <xeondead(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Revenge? I'm not sure where you've got that from. >My provider's IPs are sometimes getting blocked, and sometimes they're not. >Open Source Software should be free for everyone, drawn lines based upon >GeoIP isn't very nice, and such package has no place on AUR, or should at >least be marked as inappropriate to use on specific territories. > >пн, 18 июл. 2022 г. в 20:21, Marcell Meszaros <marcell.meszaros(a)runbox.eu>: > >> Unless *all* IP's are blocked throughout the world from downloading the >> sources, this should not be deleted. >> >> Revenge is not a valid reason for dropping a package from AUR. >> >> On 18 July 2022 10:08:33 GMT+02:00, "Christopher Snowhill (kode54) via >> aur-requests" <aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jul 18, 2022, at 12:26 AM, notify--- via aur-requests < >> aur-requests(a)lists.archlinux.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> XeonDead [1] filed a deletion request for powerpill [2]: >> >> >> >> The author has disabled connections to his storage server based on >> >> GeoIP. Just so happens, I've been hit, so the package can't be built, >> >> or it's dependencies. >> >> >> >> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/XeonDead/ >> >> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/powerpill/ >> > >> >Sounds like the dev is one of those helpful people who think it's really >> "helpful" to geoblock Russia right now. That sort of "help" doesn't belong >> in the AUR, in my opinion. >> > > >-- >С уважением, >Елисеев Дмитрий >моб. +7 (995) 593-01-64

3 years, 4 months

Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#10693] Request Accepted

by Eli Schwartz

On 02/23/2018 09:42 AM, Eden Rose wrote: > May i ask why you decided to Delete my package, while i was out of > state? > > I cannot work on any of my packages until i get home, is there a > specific reason outside a typographical error of the linker? There is > plenty of broken packages all over the aur, ncurses-full was 99% > functional and i have notes for fixing it sitting on my desk at > home. > I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, the deletion request specified exactly why the package was deleted. On 02/23/2018 09:39 AM, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote: > Your package glibc-git [1] has been flagged out-of-date by > EndlessEden [2]: > > Must be out of date if your flagging mine. > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/glibc-git/ [2] > https://aur.archlinux.org/account/EndlessEden/ > I... what? Don't do this. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

7 years, 9 months

[PRQ#46980] Deletion Request for abgx360gui

by notify＠aur.archlinux.org

Bakasura [1] filed a deletion request for abgx360gui [2]: Greetings, esteemed AUR team, I wish to draw your attention to a matter brought forth by the individual known as MarsSeed, who has seen fit to initiate a petition for the removal of this repository based upon two distinct contentions: 1. Alleged Illegality 2. Ostensible Lack of License for Software Dispensation Allow me the privilege of counterarguing as follows: Regarding Point 1: The assertion of software illegality, as posited by the user MarsSeed, merits elucidation. It is crucial to clarify that the creation of software designed for the facilitation of game backup procedures per se is not inherently illegal. Rather, the transgression resides in the act of disseminating said software sans authorization from the copyright holder. Furthermore, it is imperative to underscore that the party with the rightful standing to assert grievance on account of this software's ostensible implications would be none other than the original authors of the games in question. It is incumbent upon them to furnish substantiated evidence of perceived harm and subsequently resort to the judicial realm, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of AUR. Regarding Point 2: MarsSeed's contention with regard to the purported copyright safeguarding of the original source code by virtue of Seacrest's failure to explicitly extend a license warrants examination. It is incumbent upon me to dispel this notion as misconceived. The categorization of the source code as protected under the aegis of copyright is contingent upon the nuanced interpretation of legal statutes as applicable within the geographical confines of the jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that the solitary party endowed with the requisite authority to raise such a contention would be none other than the very progenitor of said code, namely Seacrest. I extend my gratitude for your esteemed consideration of this discourse. Sincerely, Bakasura [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Bakasura/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/abgx360gui/

2 years, 3 months

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