[aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git

Keshav P R the.ridikulus.rat at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 03:51:15 EST 2012

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 13:44, Massimiliano Torromeo
<massimiliano.torromeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 20:34, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 19:50, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>     Please delete elilo-git
>>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45565 . It uses my own git
>>>> mirror of upstram cvs repo as source (no elilo-cvs package). I have
>>>> created elilo-x86_64 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56750
>>>> to replace it, which uses upstream release tarballs. Thanks in
>>>> advance.
>>>> Regards.
>>>> Keshav
>>> Also delete grub-legacy-efi-fedora
>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=47979 , replaced by
>>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56751 .
>>> - Keshav
>> bump^2
> The reason nobody is willing to do this is probably because your
> package is obviously badly named (elilo-x86_64). There is no reason to
> name the package so. If it is x86_64 only, just put only x86_64 in
> arch=() instead of any, and just name the package "elilo".

Have you ever tried uefi booting? Or tried to find out why there are
two grub2-efi packages in extra repo. I think
should answer your question (or

That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH.
Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora.

> If instead x86_64 is a build-only requirement, you should still name
> the package as just "elilo" and leave the compile time check that you
> did already put in place.
> Either way I don't see a valid reason to name it elilo-x86_64, but if
> you think we missed something, please clarify.
> Thanks.

If you wanted clarification you could have asked instead of waiting
for me to bump this. I can't read your mind to understand why this was
IGNORED. Asking for clarification is ok but ignoring the mail totally
is not. It shouldn't take you 3 days + bump to reply to my mail.
That's a basic courtesy any one would expect. Some reply to the mail
should have been given, especially when you guys have replied to other
such removal requests.



More information about the aur-general mailing list