[aur-general] Bundled applications policy?

[WorMzy Tykashi]

Hi,

I posted a message on the package, but the maintainer has not
responded yet. Their email is also not a recognised email address (I
have tried to contact them regarding my suggestions)

I should have clarified in my last mail that this package is not my
own, but one that was brought to my attention on the Arch forums by a
new user seeking assistance with it.

Since the owner is unreachable, would it be possible to remove the
package now (despite the two week rule). If preferred, I'll write a
PKGBUILD for the beta aircrack-ng package and update the theharvester
PKGBUILD so that the AUR status quo is maintained. I'll immediately
aurphan these packages so that someone else can maintain them,
however, as I have no interest in these tools..

Please let me know what your thoughts are, and how we should best proceed.

Happy holidays,


WorMzy

On 20 December 2013 13:35, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 20 December 2013 04:20, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 December 2013 18:44, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> Just provide for and conflict with the relevant packages and you don't
>>> give anyone any trouble.
>>
>> It's halfway there, it doesn't conflict with or provide theharvester
>> package, though that's something I was going to mention when I comment
>> about some changes they should make to the PKGBUILD (shouldn't be an
>> 'any' package, binaries shouldn't be in /usr/sbin, etc.). I just
>> wanted to check that such packages are allowed before prompting them
>> to fix it up.
>>
>>> But if this whole thing is a package of a real
>>> software collection (and not just a mash-up by a packager) then I see
>>> no problem.
>>
>> It's the latter, the package pulls from two different, unrelated
>> sources and merges them into one package. The only thing is, neither
>> source is otherwise available on the AUR or official repositories (as
>> far as I can tell).
>
> A better way to rephrase what I meant is this: if it's a useful bundle
> that people will use (if some people find the beta dep better), then
> there is no problem. The "Arch way" would be to provide a separate
> package for the beta dep instead, but you can tell if your idea (of
> bundling) is working if nobody says anything about that.
>
>
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1