[aur-general] Removal request: google-chrome-mini

Tai-Lin Chu tailinchu at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 13:27:54 EDT 2012

my point is that if a user can edit depends=, he could also as well
edit build flags.

i dont think this is a good idea to ban users like this. someone mentioned that
creating too many similar packages will create confusion. I dont think
this applies to me.
i already renamed the package to "google-chrome-no-gconf"; this is
really clear and distinguishable
from 3 other google-chrome packages.

for people who read my last post, i just searched mplayer:
mplayer-fribidi-pulse and mplayer-fribidi. you might think "why does
these guys create  new pkgbuild while mplayer in extra has all these
features?" the reason is that "he feels he needs to", and i think this
is enough.

btw, there are many pkgbuild that are "out-of-date for a long time",
"does not compile", "orphaned  for years", or "has dead upstream". I
think you should put effort on these packages. picking on the packages
that are similar should be the last thing to work on.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Det <nimetonmaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just came here to say I had a good laugh from all this.
> But the thing is that if we banned this guy all his other 12 packages[1] would need new maintainers (they don't seem to be anything special, though. His most voted package with 17 votes (no-gconf[2]) doesn't even require maintenance).
> [1] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?K=taylorchu&SeB=m
> [2] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=36554
>     Det

More information about the aur-general mailing list