[aur-general] Deletion request - elilo-git

Massimiliano Torromeo massimiliano.torromeo at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 04:10:13 EST 2012

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Keshav P R <the.ridikulus.rat at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Detecting_UEFI_Firmware_Arch
> should answer your question (or
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/grub2-efi-x86_64/trunk/PKGBUILD).
> That x86_64 denoted UEFI ARCH which is independent of Kernel ARCH.
> Same reason for grub-legacy-efi-fedora.

No, I did not and that's the reason I didn't feel like I was the best
person to handle this, because I suspected I missed something on the
Also this are only my reasons, I only guessed that was the problem for
the other TUs too.

>> 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.

I can only speak for myself, (as I did before) but sometimes I do not
reply because I feel like I am not the best person that should handle
a problem and I just wait for someone else to take on it. The 3 days +
bumps were the signal for me that apparently nobody else wanted to do
this, so I stepped up. Ignoring your emails was unintended.

Anyway, the packages have been deleted now.

Have a nice day.

More information about the aur-general mailing list