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

[Tai-Lin Chu]

@Alexander Rødseth
that's "how it should work", but unfortunately none of these work well
in reality. my reason of cloning is that "the time when these packages
will update or fit your need is known". god knows when these packages
will update; it could be weeks or months(or never). i either have to
keep my own version of pkgbuild or change the pkgbuild every time i
install. that's not efficient.

@Det
1. i dont think my pkgbuild has any wrong dependency. i am really
concerned about dependency, and carefully checked chromium build
script.

2. i want to have "no-gconf" explicitly. many users are not aware that
they have to install no-gconf first, then install chrome.

3. as i said, aur is meant to a mess if you want it to be actually
useful. if your logic applies, then we should remove all "mplayer-*",
"vlc-*" ..., because we already have mplayer, vlc in [extra]. these
"families" of packages are just adding or removing some flags and
dependencies(some are even incorrect). having "mutations" gives
convenience for users. users dont care about mess really; they care
about time as they dont want to manually edit pkgbuild.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "out-of-date for a long time" is handled by flagging packages,
> e-mailing the maintainer, waiting and then requesting the package to
> be deleted here, then it's deleted by TUs
> "does not compile" is handled by commenting or contacting the
> maintainer then possibly requesting the package to be deleted here,
> then it's deleted by TUs
> "orphaned for years" is handled by adopting and fixing the package, by
> requesting the package to be deleted here or by random TUs
> "has dead upstream" is handled by commenting or contacting the
> maintainer then possibly requesting the package to be deleted here,
> then it's deleted by TUs
> "duplicate package" is handled by requesting the package to be deleted
> here or by random TUs
>
> TUs handle cases as they appear on the mailing list, as they stumble
> over problematic packages by them selves or in connection with the AUR
> cleanup day (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Cleanup_Day).
>
> Your case is "duplicate package" and is handled as such. The other
> cases are handled without needing to direct effort from "duplicate
> package" cases.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Alexander Rødseth
>  Arch Linux Trusted User
>  (xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)